MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151607166 · doi:10.2983/035.028.0322

Food Dependent Movement of Periwinkles (<i>Littorina littorea</i>) Associated with Feeding Fronts

2009· article· en· W2151607166 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean‐Sébastien Lauzon‐Guay, Robert E. Scheibling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Shellfish Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaDalhousie University
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsLittorinaFront (military)Benthic zoneGastropodaIntertidal zoneBiologyRocky shoreSnailEcologyMolluscaZooidForagingOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumer aggregations have the potential to drastically change the distribution and availability of resources. One form of aggregation observed in marine benthic invertebrates is the feeding front: a dense band of consumers that travels in a directional manner through a food patch, leaving a cleared area behind it. By artificially creating spatial heterogeneity in the distribution of a filamentous green alga, the formation of a feeding front of periwinkles Littorina littorea was induced on a rocky intertidal shore. The position of the front, the density of snails that comprised it, and the movement of individual snails in and around the front were monitored over a period of 14 days. During that period, the front advanced at an average speed of 2.25 cm d-1 and the density of snails in the front varied between 10 and 24 snails 100 cm-2. Temporal variation in snail density was negatively correlated with wave action. Snails on the trailing edge of the front or on bare rock behind the front exhibited directional movement towards the front, but snails in the front moved shorter distances than those on bare rock. These results support previous findings of resource-dependent movement as a causal mechanism of front formation in marine benthic habitats.

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)0.002
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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.273
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 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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Shellfish ResearchSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207