Combining stable isotope and intestinal parasite information to evaluate dietary differences between individual ringed seals (<i>Phoca hispida botnica</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diet and foraging behaviour of nine individual Baltic ringed seals ( Phoca hispida botnica Gmelin, 1785) in the Bothnian Bay were studied by combining results from stable isotope analyses (δ13C and δ15N) with data on intestinal parasites whose occurrence varied among the fish hosts. The patterns of infection with three acanthocephalan parasites, Corynosoma semerme (Forssell, 1904), Corynosoma magdaleni Montreuil, 1958, and Corynosoma strumosum (Rudolphi, 1802), and with a cestode larva, Schistocephalus solidus (Müller, 1776), were examined. The ringed seals become infected with these intestinal parasites by feeding on the fish hosts and hence have different parasite species and different parasite burdens according to their dietary history. δ13C and δ15N values were determined from diaphragm muscle of the seals and from tissues of potential prey items. A dual isotope plot of δ13C and δ15N values for individual seals and mean values for key potential prey species, together with the parasitological data from the seals, allowed inferences to be drawn about the feeding of individual seals. It appeared that two seals foraged particularly on fourhorn sculpin ( Myoxocephalus quadricornis (L., 1758)) and one seal consumed a high proportion of the isopod Saduria entomon (L., 1758). Three seals apparently preferred coastal benthic prey in their diets, while two other seals fed more on pelagic herring ( Clupea harengus membras L., 1761). One older female seal evidently also fed on salmon ( Salmo salar L., 1758).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".