MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035181628 · doi:10.1080/14634988.2020.1730684

Ciliate ecology in the eutrophic Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario: Community structure and feeding characteristics

2020· article· en· W3035181628 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Munawar, H. Niblock, M. Fitzpatrick, Jamie Lorimer

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Ecosystem Health & Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCiliateBayPicoplanktonTrophic levelEcologyBiologyEutrophicationCommunity structureAutotrophPredationBiomass (ecology)PhytoplanktonNutrientGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ciliate community of the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario was assessed over a six year period from 2003 – 2008. One eutrophic site in the upper bay (Belleville) and one more oligotrophic site in the lower bay (Conway), were included in the survey. Both sites contained a mixture of Haptoria, Strobilidium, Halteria, Strombidium, and Vorticella, although the relative proportions varied among sites resulting in different community structures. Ciliate biomass was found to be significantly higher at Belleville (mean: 100.2 ± 14.1 mg m−3) compared to Conway (mean: 37.1 ± 3.5 mg m−3), but could be explained by sudden pulses of Haptoria, primarily species of Mesodinium, which peaked as high as 678.1 mg m−3. Canonical Correspondence Analysis showed a clustering of Halteria, Strobilidium, Tintinnina, Urotricha and Vorticella with surface temperature along with autotrophic picoplankton as a potential prey item. The results suggest that autotrophic picoplankton may be an important food resource for the ciliate community and that there is a strong seasonal gradient to community structure. Future research should be directed at understanding how ciliates influence the transfer of both primary and secondary production to higher trophic levels.

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)0.001
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 score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.221
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Ecosystem Health & ManagementSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207