MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885458178 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2018-0081

The unique giant Irish moss (<i>Chondrus crispus</i>) from Basin Head: health assessment in relation to reference sites on Prince Edward Island

2018· article· en· W2885458178 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Paula Flynn, David J. Garbary, Irené Novaczek, Anthony G. Miller, Pedro A. Quijón

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaSt. Francis Xavier UniversityUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMossBiologyBotanyIrishSporophytePopulationFrondGametophyteEcologyFernDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Irish moss (Chondrus crispus Stackhouse) is a red alga that is common in Atlantic Canada. A unique strain of this species, the giant Irish moss, grows in a single location and is under strict protection. Unlike the common coastal form, the giant Irish moss reproduces solely by fragmentation and is found in gametophyte form. A 99.9% decline in giant Irish moss abundance (1999–2012) prompted this study to address two questions: whether the giant Irish moss remains 100% vegetative and gametophytic, and whether such decline is related to factors leading to a reduction in photosynthetic health. Six populations of the common Irish moss strain were compared with two populations of giant Irish moss, and their life history phases determined using a resorcinol method. The common Irish moss populations exhibited a 65%–86% ratio of gametophytic:tetrasporophytic fronds, while both giant strain populations were 100% gametophytic. Photosynthetic efficiency was measured with Pulse-Amplitude-Modulation (PAM) fluorometry and neither giant moss population had significantly different quantum yield values from the littoral populations. Hence, these analyses provided no evidence of giant Irish moss being exposed to particular sources of stress linked to water or habitat quality and alternative factors explaining the decline of this unique strain are proposed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207