MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053487651 · doi:10.1080/17451000903300877

Relative importance of parental diet versus larval nutrition on development and phenotypic plasticity of <i>Pseudechinus huttoni</i> larvae (Echinodermata: Echinoidea)

2010· article· en· W2053487651 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hadi Poorbagher, Miles D. Lamare, Mike Barker, Will Rayment

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Biology Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine Biology and Environmental Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyKelpCockleFecundityMacrocystis pyriferaLarvaZoologyPhenotypic plasticityAnimal scienceEcologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The relative importance of parental and larval diets on development of larvae of the sea urchin Pseudechinus huttoni was examined. Laval parameters measured included the size of body components, development rate, morphological phenotypic plasticity, mortality rate, protein, lipid, carbohydrate and energy contents. We also investigated the influence of parental nutrition on fecundity, egg diameter and the eggs' protein, lipid and carbohydrate content. For a period of one year, adult P. huttoni were fed kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) ad libitum every second day as a low-quality diet, or kelp ad libitum every day plus cockle (Austrovenus stutchburyi) flesh once a week as a high-quality diet. Adults fed the high-quality diet produced larger eggs and larvae with a slower development rate, longer arms relative to the midline length, and lower protein, lipid and carbohydrate contents. In larvae, higher concentrations of planktonic diet led to larger body components, a faster development rate and shorter arms relative to midline length. This study showed that parental nutrition has an important effect on development rate and morphological phenotypic plasticity in larvae of P. huttoni.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Biology ResearchSame topicMarine Biology and Environmental ChemistryFrench-language works237,207