MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103866724 · doi:10.1017/s0025315405011458

Predation on pelagic coelenterates: a review

2005· review· en· W2103866724 on OpenAlex
Mary Needler Arai

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

VenueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationPelagic zoneBiologyTrophic levelJellyfishCnidariaEcologyZoologyScyphozoaPredatorAnthozoaCoral

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coelenterates (cnidaria and ctenophores) are well recognized as predators in food webs of marine ecosystems but are less often considered as prey. This is partly because they are digested very rapidly. In studies based on predator stomach contents the measured masses of different prey organisms are rarely scaled by their relative rates of digestion. Predators that are frozen and thawed, or for which whole stomachs are placed in preservatives, may have already lost much of their coelenterate content when they are examined. There is also a tendency to assume that gelatinous organisms, with their high water and salt content relative to organic content, are poor food. However, given the high rates of digestion (and presumably of assimilation) coelenterates may provide sources of energy comparable to better recognized prey such as arthropods. It is already becoming well documented that a number of cnidaria and ctenophores as well as fish utilize gelatinous organisms as prey. Data is accumulating more slowly on predation by a wide range of other carnivores such as molluscs, arthropods, reptiles and birds.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.223 · 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