MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058782260 · doi:10.1017/s0025315410001876

Life history characters and population dynamics of the boreal larvacean<i>Oikopleura vanhoeffeni</i>(Tunicata) in Conception Bay, Newfoundland

2010· article· en· W2058782260 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nami Choe, Don Deibel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayFecundityPopulationBiologyBorealEcologyBloomSpring bloomOceanographyPhytoplanktonDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the population dynamics and life history characters of the boreal larvacean Oikopleura vanhoeffeni in Conception Bay over two years and determined its role in secondary production. Based on the analysis of age structure inferred from statolith diameter, the generation time was approximately one year. Recruitment of new cohorts and maximum population growth rate occurred in the spring. Somatic growth rate was 0.017 d −1 from the year 2001 to 2002 and 0.043 d −1 from 2002 to 2003, with an acceleration in growth rate during April in response to the spring diatom bloom despite the coldest water temperatures. The annual production rate (i.e. somatic + house production) of 8.7 g C m −2 y −1 in 2001/2, and 3.8 g C m −2 y −1 in 2002/3, represented 2.9–6.7% of primary production and 37–87% of estimated mesozooplankton production, suggesting that O. vanhoeffeni is a major secondary producer in Conception Bay. Individuals matured at seasonally variable body size throughout the year and potential fecundity peaked as the individuals matured at their largest body size during the spring bloom, most likely resulting in maximum egg production and population growth rates at that time of year. Thus, a seasonal pulse of food is a major driving force that regulates the variation in life history characters and population dynamics of the boreal O. vanhoeffeni .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United KingdomSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207