Diets of the Arkansas River Shiner and Peppered Chub in the Canadian River, New Mexico and Texas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the digestive tract contents of 1,437 Arkansas River shiners (Notropis girardi) and 1,943 peppered chubs (Macrhybopsis tetranema) collected from the Canadian River in New Mexico and Texas from September 1996 to August 1998. Both the Arkansas River shiner and peppered chub are generalist feeders, with terrestrial and aquatic insects representing 28 and 31%, respectively, by weight, of their diets. Detritus, plant materials, and sand-silt represented 26, 6, and 40%, respectively, of the Arkansas River shiner diet and 25, 28, and 17% of the peppered chub diet. The presence of sand-silt in the diets of both species suggests they forage among sediments on the river bottom. The common occurrence of terrestrial insects (i.e., Coleoptera, Hymenoptera) in the diet of the Arkansas River shiner indicates this species also feeds in the water column on drifting invertebrates.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".