MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080284481 · doi:10.1080/14634980301496

Abundance, biomass and estimated production of planktonic ciliates in Lakes Victoria and Malawi

2003· article· en· W2080284481 on OpenAlex
Andrew Yasindi, William D. Taylor

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Ecosystem Health & Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCiliateAbundance (ecology)PlanktonBiomass (ecology)EcologyGuildChlorophyll aBiologyEnvironmental scienceHabitatBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The abundance, biomass and composition of planktonic ciliates were studied in two Great Lakes of Africa, Malawi and Victoria, between June, 1997, and June, 1999, to investigate their role in the food webs of these lakes. Oligotrichs (Strombidium , Strobilidium and Halteria) were the most abundant group of ciliates in both lakes. Other important ciliates in terms of abundance and/or biomass included heterotrichs, peritrichs, haptorids, and peniculids. Mean ciliate abundance was 1.5 ciliates · mL−1 and 20.1 ciliates · mL−1 in Lakes Malawi and Victoria, respectively. Ciliate biomass ranged from 0.03 to 7.82 μg C · L−1 (mean 1.8 ± 0.7 μg C · L−1) in Lake Malawi and ranged from 24.2 to 61.82 μg C · L−1 (mean 36 μg C · L−1) in Lake Victoria. Ciliate abundance and biomass were higher at offshore than inshore stations of both lakes despite that chlorophyll exhibited the opposite trend. Both lakes demonstrated vertical and temporal variation in their ciliate communities as well. Herbivores were an important feeding guild in both lakes, while mixotrophs and bacterivores were also important in Lakes Malawi and Victoria, respectively.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.221 · 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