MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155595587 · doi:10.1139/f06-168

Distinguishing trophic variation from seasonal and size-based isotopic (δ<sup>15</sup>N) variation of zooplankton

2007· article· en· W2155595587 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Blake Matthews, Asit Mazumder

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsZooplanktonTrophic levelDaphnia pulexSeasonalityBranchiopodaPlanktonTrophic state indexEcologyDaphniaCladoceraBiologyPhytoplanktonNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We measured the δ15N of particulate organic matter (POM), Daphnia pulex (D), Holopedium gibberum (H), Leptodiaptomus tyrelli (LT), Epischura nevadensis (E), and Chaoborus trivittatus (C) over an annual cycle in Council Lake, a pristine, oligotrophic, fishless lake. Annual averages of the δ15N of plankton (C, LT, E > D, H > POM) matched expected differences in trophic position, but seasonal patterns differed among species. During midsummer, the δ15N of D, H, and LT increased above the δ15N of E and C, despite little temporal or spatial variation in the δ15N of POM (<41 µm). Larger size fractions of POM (41–200 µm) helped explain some of the temporal variability of zooplankton δ15N. Body size of zooplankton was correlated with δ15N for D, C, and E, which could indicate size-based, trophic-level variation; selective feeding; or physiological differences in 15N enrichment. We propose that detailed time series of δ15N for multiple zooplankton species can help determine the seasonal variability of trophic structure in zooplankton assemblages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.203
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations28
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207