MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2199938890 · doi:10.1016/j.oceano.2015.12.001

Spatial distribution and diet of larval snailfishes (Liparis fabricii, Liparis gibbus, Liparis tunicatus) in the Canadian Beaufort Sea

2015· article· en· W2199938890 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wojciech Walkusz, Joclyn E. Paulić, Sally Wong, Sławomir Kwaśniewski, Michael H. Papst, James D. Reist

Bibliographic record

VenueOceanologia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLarvaCalanusZooplanktonPelagic zoneArcticEcologyZoologyCrustaceanCopepod

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents information on diet and distribution of larval snailfishes from the genus Liparis on the Canadian Beaufort Sea Shelf. In this study, 153 larval snailfishes of three species, Liparis fabricii, L. gibbus and L. tunicatus, were collected during 4 summer cruises (2003–2005, 2007). The majority of the larvae were either in flexion or post-flexion stage, and some were in pre-flexion stage. Liparis larvae appeared to be generalists in terms of diet and fed on a wide range of planktonic organisms. Pre-flexion larvae fed on small copepods (mainly adult stages of Triconia borealis). As larvae grew their diet shifted towards larger copepods (copepodids III/IV of Calanus hyperboreus, copepodids II–IV of Calanus glacialis and females of Metridia longa) and amphipods (Themisto libellula). Remarkably, larvaceans Oikopleura spp. and pelagic snails Limacina helicina made up a substantial part of the larval diet. This paper contributes to the knowledge on arctic larval fishes and to the ongoing efforts regarding Canadian Beaufort Sea ecosystem modeling.

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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOceanologiaSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207