MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121763053 · doi:10.4319/lo.2006.51.6.2828

Stable isotopes in subtidal food webs: Have enriched carbon ratios in benthic consumers been misinterpreted?

2006· article· en· W2121763053 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc-Olivier Nadon, John H. Himmelman

Bibliographic record

VenueLimnology and Oceanography · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Warwick
KeywordsBenthic zonePrimary producersSubmarine pipelineOceanographyShoreEnvironmental scienceIsotopes of carbonKelpEcologyBiologyTotal organic carbonGeologyPhytoplankton

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the hypothesis that the δ 13 C of benthic consumers is depleted in offshore, deeper waters where kelp and benthic microalgae are absent by conducting three analyses: (1) we analyzed δ 13 C (and δ 15 N) of consumers along a nearshore‐offshore gradient in the field, (2) we analyzed δ 13 C (and δ 15 N) of consumers placed in cages at various depths and distances from shore, and (3) we reexamined published stable isotope values for consumers taken at various depths from studies around the world. In all three situations, we did not observe the predicted change in δ 13 C values of benthic consumers. In both the literature and in our field measurements, the δ 13 C values for consumers were on average separated from the values for suspended particulate organic matter by 4%, irrespective of depth, indicating that factors other than the feeding on 13 C‐rich benthic primary producers may explain the enriched carbon ratios in benthic consumers (e.g., selective feeding on enriched particles). The hypothesis that the high δ 13 C ratio in suspension and deposit feeders reflects feeding on benthic primary producers is thus tenuous and requires further investigation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations70
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLimnology and OceanographySame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207