MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165365121 · doi:10.1139/f03-005

Physiological energetics of Lake Erie dreissenid mussels: a basis for the displacement of <i>Dreissena</i> <i>polymorpha</i> by <i>Dreissena bugensis</i>

2003· article· en· W2165365121 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ann M. Stoeckmann

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPennsylvania State University
KeywordsDreissenaBiologyZebra musselBivalviaMolluscaEcologyReproductionZoologyRespirationFisheryAnimal scienceMusselBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I measured respiration, shell growth, body mass, and reproduction in sympatric populations of zebra (Dreissena polymorpha) and quagga (Dreissena bugensis) mussels in western Lake Erie to determine if the species differ in physiological parameters and if any differences provide an explanation for the recent displacement of zebra mussels by quagga mussels. Between May and August, I measured respiration (1998), shell growth of marked mussels suspended in cages in the lake (1999–2000), soft body mass and mass of gametes released (1998–2001), and the number of gametes released by individual mussels (1999). Quagga mussels had lower respiration rates and greater shell growth and body mass. There was no difference in the percentage of spawning mussels or the number of sperm released by individuals, but zebra mussels generally released more eggs and a greater mass of gametes than did quagga mussels. Similar reproduction at a lower body mass indicates that zebra mussels devote a greater proportion of body tissue to reproduction. Lower respiration rates and larger size give quagga mussels a competitive advantage and may explain their displacement of zebra mussels.

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)0.000
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 score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations153
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207