MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The dorid nudibranchs <i><scp>P</scp>eltodoris lentiginosa</i> and <i><scp>A</scp>rchidoris odhneri</i> as predators of glass sponges

2012· article· en· W2102721206 on OpenAlexaff
Jackson W. F. Chu, Sally P. Leys

Bibliographic record

VenueInvertebrate Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpongeSponge spiculeBiologyPredationCoral reefReefEcologyZoologyBotanyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The dorid nudibranchs Peltodoris lentiginosa and Archidoris odhneri were found on glass sponges (Porifera, Hexactinellida) during remotely operated vehicle surveys of three reefs in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Canada. Eight nudibranchs were sampled from 2009 to 2011. Identification of sponge spicules found in their gut and fecal contents confirmed the nudibranchs to be predators of the reef‐forming hexactinellids Aphrocallistes vastus and Heterochone calyx, as well as of the demosponge Desmacella austini, which encrusts skeletons of the glass sponges. Four of five nudibranchs dissected for gut content analysis had stomachs containing sponge spicules. Counts from high‐definition video footage taken during systematic surveys done in 2009 showed that nudibranchs were found in only two of the three glass sponge reefs. These data provide the first quantitative evidence of a molluscan predator on glass sponges found outside of Antarctica, and establish the first trophic link between glass sponges and their associated community of animals in a sponge reef ecosystem on the western Canadian continental shelf.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvertebrate BiologySame topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207