A cold-water coral garden with co-occurring <i>Antipathella subpinnata</i> and <i>Dendrophyllia cornigera</i> in the mesophotic zone of the northern Bay of Biscay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large aggregations of cold-water corals (CWC), often termed CWC gardens, are considered as biodiversity hotspots and recognized as vulnerable marine ecosystems. Their three-dimensional structure creates important habitat complexity, providing refuge, nursery and feeding areas for many deep-water species. Their vulnerability and limited current knowledge highlight the importance of describing the distribution and habitats of these gardens. Using remotely operated vehicles (ROV), we describe an unprecedented large aggregation of the co-occurring black ( Antipathella subpinnata ) and yellow ( Dendrophyllia cornigera ) coral gardens in the mesophotic in the northern Bay of Biscay. These distributions acknowledged their latitudinal and bathymetric distributions, in particular for A. subpinnata . Black and yellow corals presented mean densities of 2.0 ± 1.8 colonies.10 m -2 and 1.5 ± 1.3 colonies.10 m -2 , respectively. Following the complex topography of this area, they were mostly fixed on hard substrates, particularly in narrow crests close to or surrounded by sand or mud planes. These findings are essential to develop appropriate local spatial management plans, ultimately contributing to the conservation of these vulnerable ecosystems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".