How specialized are the diets of Northeastern Pacific sponge-eating dorid nudibranchs?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptobranch dorids are typically thought to have specialized diets limited by prey skeletal architecture and chemistry, but recorded diets for some species are broader than expected. Few studies have directly compared prey use with prey availability over multiple sites to test the dietary range of separate populations. Diets of dorids at sites in British Columbia, Canada were not simply related to the richness and diversity of the local sponge assemblage, partly because all dorids avoided the most common sponges and instead consumed rare, inconspicuous species. At each site, three dorid species (Cadlina luteomarginata, Diaulula sandiegensis and Peltodoris nobilis) consumed multiple species, while two others (Doris montereyensis and D. odhneri) each consumed one species almost exclusively, so total dietary ranges may sometimes reflect true oligophages and sometimes mosaics of stenophage populations. Diets in all cases shifted greatly among sites and geographic regions and included sponges with different skeletal types, indicating that all species are nonstereotyped specialists. The diets of these dorids may be determined primarily by haphazard encounters among scarce or patchy palatable prey, with other prey attributes playing a lesser role.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".