Gametophyte life-history dominance of Chondrus crispus (Gigartinaceae, Rhodophyta) along the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Similar to other species of Gigartinaceae Chondrus crispus has an alternation of perennial, isomorphic gametophytic and sporophytic generations.As these two generations co-exist independently within populations and obtain their resources in a similar manner, intraspeciic competition is expected.In populations within the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, fronds of both generations of C. crispus occur in similar numbers.This equivalency can be related to substratum instability, where the population is dynamic with a high turn-over rate of genets.These observations support a stochastic hypothesis to account for distribution of gametophytes and sporophytes in this area.Along the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia, where the substratum is stable, gametophytes are overwhelmingly predominant.Gametophytic predominance is greatest in the lower littoral zone where C. crispus is abundant and space is limited.Under the fucoid canopy where "free-space" exists, the gametophyte to sporophyte ratio is lower.Gametophytic and sporophytic fronds are distributed equally among different size-classes and size-distribution is not considered a competitive factor.Previous studies have shown that sporophytic fronds of C. crispus are more susceptible to infections by endophytic algae and other pathogens, and are more heavily grazed by herbivores than are gametophytic fronds.Thus, mechanistic factors are strongly implied in the selection of gametophytes in the Atlantic population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".