MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2281340926 · doi:10.1016/s0967-0653(97)86363-6

10.1016/s0967-0653(97)86363-6

2000· article· en· W2281340926 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. Gaudy, Marc Pagano, Guillermo Cervetto, Lucien Saint‐Jean, G. Verriopoulos, Béatriz Beker

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcartia tonsaCopepodPelagic zoneAnimal scienceBiologyRespirationAcartiaIngestionChlorophyll aZooplanktonPlanktonEnergy budgetEcologyCrustaceanEnvironmental scienceBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feeding, respiration, and ammonia excretion of Acartia tonsa were studied in a brackish lagoon, near Marseilles (Southern France). The experiments were performed during the same season in two successive years, using naturally occurring particles as food. Strong variations in both quantity and quality of food particles were recorded between the two series of experiments. The ingestion of particles according to their size was studied by means of the Coulter Counter technique. Females ingested more food than males. In both sexes, there was a tendency to select median to large particles, regardless of the shape of the particles-size spectrum. In 1990, the specific production rate, deduced from the energy budget, was equivalent to or greater than the observed egg production, while in 1989 it was too small to account for the observed rate. This could be due to the poor nutritive value of particles in 1989, as evidenced by their low chlorophyll:volume ratio. The nutritive requirements would then have been completed by ingestion of nauplii and rotifers which were particularly abundant in 1989. This presumed shift to carnivorism is borne out by the lower O:N atomic ratio (oxygen consumed and NH4-N excreted) calculated for this period.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0090.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9850.986

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.148
Teacher spread0.141 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations17
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knitSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207