MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066392677 · doi:10.1139/z99-249

Stable-isotope and electron-microscopic evidence that cyamids (Crustacea: Amphipoda) feed on whale skin

2000· article· en· W2066392677 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Donald M. Schell, Victoria J. Rowntree, Carl J. Pfeiffer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAmphipodaZooplanktonWhaleTrophic levelCrustaceanBaleenBalaenopteraEcologyCopepodGelatinous zooplanktonPelagic zoneRight whaleStable isotope ratioOmnivoreZoologyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cyamids (Crustacea: Amphipoda) are found only on whales. Observational evidence and the morphology of the mouthparts have indicated that whale skin is the primary food for these organisms. It has also been suggested, however, that the cyamids may be feeding on epidermal diatoms and meiofauna associated with the skin or using the whales as transport to regions of high zooplankton densities, where small pelagic organisms are captured while the whales feed. Here we report electron-microscopic and isotopic evidence that whale skin was ingested and assimilated by cyamids. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios of cyamids and whale skin from six species of whales were compared with those of zooplankton from the regions through which the whales migrate, to infer the most likely food sources. In all cases, cyamid isotope ratios closely matched those of the whale skin and not those of the zooplankton, again indicating that whale skin was the predominant food source. Unlike most other carnivorous organisms, cyamids do not show a trophic enrichment of δ15N, a trait also found in other species of Amphipoda.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations27
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207