MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087117154 · doi:10.1017/s0025315409000071

<i>Halocladius variabilis</i>(Diptera: Chironomidae): a marine insect symbiotic with seaweeds from the White Sea, Russia

2009· article· en· W2087117154 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elena Tarakhovskaya, David J. Garbary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFucus vesiculosusBiologyIntertidal zoneThallusAscophyllumEpiphyteFucusEcologyBiological dispersalHost (biology)AlgaeBotanyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The commensal (and possibly mutualistic) symbiosis between the marine chironomid, Halocladius variabilis , and brown algal epiphytes of Fucus vesiculosus and Ascophyllum nodosum is described for the first time from Europe, based on field studies from the White Sea, Russia. While the primary host, Elachista fucicola , and the secondary host, A. nodosum , are the same as in eastern Canada where the symbiosis was first described, White Sea populations have a wider range of primary hosts that include Pylaiella littoralis and Dictyosiphon foeniculaceus . About 64% of E. fucicola thalli on A. nodosum in the low intertidal zone were colonized. Significantly lower frequencies were found on E. fucicola when the latter was epiphytic on F. vesiculosus at the same tidal height or on either secondary host when they were in the subtidal zone. For a given tidal height, or secondary host, frequency of H. variabilis was reduced on P. littoralis and further reduced on D. foeniculaceus . We suggest that subtidal populations are colonized by dispersal of larvae from the intertidal zone on to suitable substrata, and that there is limited potential for these individuals to reach the intertidal zone as adults for reproduction.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.172 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United KingdomSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207