MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156924656 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2014-0216

Effects of <i>Didymosphenia geminata</i> blooms on benthic diatom assemblages in the Restigouche River Watershed, eastern Canada

2015· article· en· W2156924656 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Branaavan Sivarajah, Joshua Kurek, Kathleen M. Rühland, John P. Smol

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiatoms and Algae Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersUniversity of California, San Francisco
KeywordsDiatomBenthic zoneSpecies richnessEcologyBiotaEnvironmental scienceAlgal bloomOceanographyBiologyPhytoplanktonGeologyNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nuisance Didymosphenia geminata (Lyngbye) M. Schmidt (didymo) blooms were first reported in 2006 from the Restigouche River Watershed (RRW), eastern Canada. Although government agencies and recreational users are concerned about these blooms, little is known about the impact on biota and (or) the structure and function of the relatively pristine riverine systems of the RRW. Here, we assess whether didymo blooms affect overall benthic diatom assemblage composition by examining epilithic samples from middle stretches of the Patapedia and Upsalquitch rivers. Significant (albeit minor) differences (P < 0.05) in diatom assemblage composition between sites, with and without didymo blooms, were only observed from the Patapedia River. Rarefied diatom species diversity (Hill’s N2) and rarefied richness did not differ significantly among sites, regardless of the presence or absence of blooms. Our data show that didymo blooms have minimal effect on benthic diatom assemblage composition in the RRW.

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 score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicDiatoms and Algae ResearchFrench-language works237,207