Comparison of the isotopic composition of fish otolith-bound organic N with host tissue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 15N/14N ratio of the fish-native organic matter preserved in fish otoliths (or δ15Noto) may allow for reconstruction of fish trophic history and changes in food webs. To support this application, ground-truthing data are needed on the relationships among the δ15N of diet, of fish tissue (e.g., white muscle tissue, δ15Nwmt), and δ15Noto. Using a highly sensitive method for N isotope analysis, δ15Noto was compared with δ15Nwmt in 24 teleost species. Within a species, the difference between δ15Noto and δ15Nwmt (Δδ15No-w) varied little across individuals, confirming the utility of δ15Noto to reconstruct δ15Nwmt changes for a given species. Across species, δ15Noto and δ15Nwmt were highly correlated. However, Δδ15No-w varied systematically across species. Phylogeny, the concentrations of total N and amino acids, and life history were ruled out as the main cause for the observed variation in Δδ15No-w. δ15Noto was lowest relative to δ15Nwmt in species producing larger otoliths. We propose that δ15Noto is elevated by isotopically fractionating metabolism of the organic matrix, which is less important when otolith growth is fast and thus when the otolith is large.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".