MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889430158 · doi:10.4236/ojms.2018.84022

<em>In Situ</em> Filtration Rates of Blue Mussels (<em>Mytilus edulis</em>) Measured by an Open-Top Chamber Method

2018· article· en· W2889430158 on OpenAlexaff
Florian Lüskow, Hans Ulrik Riisgård

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Journal of Marine Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersVillum Fonden
KeywordsMytilusChemistryBiologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blue mussels, Mytilus edulis , form dense beds of both commercial and ecological importance, and many attempts have been made to determine their filtration rate. The total time in which mussels actually utilise their filtration capacity in nature varies greatly, making in situ methods for filtration rate measurements relevant. Further, it is being debated to what extend filtration rates measured in the laboratory using cultivated algal cells may apply for mussels in nature. In the present study, we have used an open-top chamber setup in order to allow repeated in situ filtration rate measurements of M. edulis using ambient natural phytoplankton and free-living bacteria. We found that the in situ measured filtration rates are comparable to filtration rates obtained in laboratory studies using different methods and controlled diets of cultivated algal cells. Further, we found that the retention efficiency of free-living bacteria was between 22.2% and 29.9%, in good agreement with values from laboratory studies. Our findings support the assumption that mussels in nature tend to use their filtration capacity when the phytoplankton concentration is above a certain lower trigger level.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture StudiesFrench-language works237,207