Data from: Vertical distribution of marine invertebrate larvae in response to thermal stratification in the laboratory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the effect of the presence of an experimentally generated thermocline on the vertical distribution of larval Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis, Asterias rubens and Argopecten irradians. Vertical distributions were recorded over 90 min in rectangular plexiglass thermocline chambers designed to regulate the temperature of a central observation compartment to the desired values. The temperature in the bottom water layer (B) and the temperature difference between layers (ΔT) were manipulated in an orthogonal design. We used, for S. droebachiensis: 4 levels of ΔT (0, 3, 6 and 12 °C) and 3 levels of B (3, 6 and 9 °C); for A. rubens: 3 levels ΔT (0, 6 and 12 °C) and 2 levels of B (6 and 12 °C); and for A. irradians: 3 levels of ΔT (0, 5 and 11 °C) and 2 levels of B (5 and 11 °C). The difference in temperature between water layers did not affect the vertical distribution of echinoderms consistently, while the distribution of A. irradians was limited to the bottom layer when any thermal stratification was present regardless of strength. Our results suggest that the vertical position of larvae of S. droebachiensis and A. rubens is related to the temperatures of the surface layer and that the presence alone or the steepness of the thermocline has less influence on their distribution. Consequently, in the field, echinoderm larvae would aggregate at the surface unless temperature extremes were encountered. In contrast, the position of A. irradians was limited to the bottom layer in the presence of a thermocline of at least 5 °C (the shallowest used in our study). Such thermoclines are common in a natural setting and could affect the vertical distribution and horizontal dispersal of larvae by acting as a barrier to vertical migration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".