MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312218619 · doi:10.1163/15685403-bja10237

Oxygen uptake by wrack- and driftwood-acclimated populations of Platorchestia platensis (Amphipoda, Talitridae) during feeding and fasting

2022· article· en· W4312218619 on OpenAlexaff
D. J. Wildish, N. J. Poole, Benjamin de Jourdan, Jason Durante

Bibliographic record

VenueCrustaceana · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsHuntsman Marine Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPopulationAmphipodaAnimal scienceDigestion (alchemy)IngestionEcologyZoologyBotanyCrustaceanChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Oxygen uptake rates were measured in fasted and fed Platorchestia platensis (Krøyer, 1845) to estimate the energy required for ingestion, digestion, absorption, assimilation and growth. A modified population specific dynamic action model (SDApop) was compared between two populations fed either wrack or driftwood. Results reject the null hypothesis: that both populations have equal energy requirements during digestion, as might be the case if native enzymes alone were involved. The alternate hypothesis that driftwood-fed P. platensis have a significantly lower SDA than wrack-fed ones was supported. Our oxygen uptake measurement experiments could not distinguish between two possible causes of the lower energetic costs associated with driftwood-fed P. platensis: driftwood as a poor-quality food and/or a microbial subsidy effect. Preliminary microbiological studies of P. platensis do support the subsidy effect, because cellulose-degrading bacteria and filamentous fungi were present in whole body tissues from the animal. Wrack and driftwood culture treatments of P. platensis supported a different cellulose-degrading microbiome between the two treatments.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrustaceanaSame topicEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyFrench-language works237,207