Variation in rhodolith morphology and biogenic potential of newly discovered rhodolith beds in Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For the first time the subarctic northwestern Atlantic, we examined variation in rhodolith (Lithothamnion glaciale) morphology and biogenic potential in two large (>500 m2) rhodolith beds we discovered recently between the depths of 5–25 m off St. Philip’s and Holyrood, Newfoundland and Labrador. Rhodoliths at St. Philip’s were >50% larger and contained 7% more internal space in deep (15–17 m) than shallow (8–10 m) water, whereas shallow rhodoliths were >180% larger at Holyrood than at St. Philip’s. Rhodoliths were predominantly spheroidal and compact at St. Philip’s and platy or bladed at Holyrood. Shallow rhodoliths varied in length from 41.1–114.6 mm at St. Philip’s and 61.3–189.1 mm at Holyrood. Rhodolith density was similar between beds (858.1–938.9 individuals m-2) although biomass was significantly higher at Holyrood than St. Philip’s (25.3 versus 19.4 kg m-2). There was a strong positive relationship (R2>0.93) between rhodolith volume and dry weight in both beds. Invertebrates associated with shallow rhodoliths belonging to the taxonomic groups Asteroidea, Echinoidea, Ophiuroidea, Bivalvia, Gastropoda, Polyplacophora, Crustacea, and Annelida were present at both sites, although they varied in terms of size, density, and biomass. Brittle stars (Ophiopholis aculeata) and chitons (Tonicella marmorea) accounted for at least 82% (up to 2026.7 individuals m-2) of total numbers of invertebrates in each bed. Larger rhodoliths appeared to facilitate reproduction and feeding in dominant fish and invertebrate species. Differences in hydrodynamic conditions within and between beds may have contributed to these patterns.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".