Differences between epilithic and epizoic hydroid assemblages from commercial scallop grounds in the Bay of Fundy, northwest Atlantic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydroid assemblages from the shells of 104 live scallops Placopecten magellanicus and 136 cobbles were sampled from 39 sites on heavily dredged commercial scallop grounds in the Bay of Fundy, northwest Atlantic.The scallop shells were considered pseudo-controls, representing undisturbed 'island habitats' naturally interspersed amongst the cobbles.Cobbles were expected to represent disturbed habitat.Samples yielded 51 taxa from 24 genera across substrata.The number of taxa was significantly lower on cobbles.Multidimensional scaling plots and statistical analyses on presence-absence data discriminated 2 divergent assemblages consistent with substratum.Cobble assemblages were characterized by Campanularia volubilis, Clytia hemisphaerica and Clytia sp., while those on the live scallop shells were characterized by the small auto-epizoite Calycella syringa and its hosts Sertularia cupressina and Obelia dichotoma.Species discriminating between the substrata are considered substrate generalists.Fishing effort was introduced as a factor in an analysis of similarity and accounted for a significant proportion of the variance within and between substrata, with larger R 2 values associated with the cobble assemblages, as expected.Runner-like forms with small, unbranched colonies and medusa life stages were more frequently found on cobbles than on live scallop shells.Assemblage and life history divergence associated with fishing effort, widespread substrate generalism amongst the principle taxa, and observations from other studies suggest that these observed differences could be related to chronic disturbance of cobbles caused by fishing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".