Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Chironomus group in Lake Winnipeg At least 16 species of the Chironomus group occur in Lake Winnipeg. Chironomus (C.) bifurcatus and C. (C.) entis both are very common and distributed all over the lake (Fig. 1). The larvae of C. bifurcatus are most common in the South Basin, while C. entis is more common in the Narrows and in the North Basin. The remaining species of Chironomus are represented by only a few specimens in the bottom samples (Fig. 1). The fluviatilis type probably is one of two species described by Wülker (2007) from the near-shore sediments of Lake Michigan, C. mozleyi Wûlker and C. winnelli Wülker. The significance of the different Chironomus species as indicators of trophic levels is nicely demonstrated by their distribution in Lake Winnipeg. The oligotrophic fluviatilis type is limited to the extreme northern part of the lake which is isolated from the rest of the lake by a strong current from the outlet of the Saskatchewan River to the outlet. The mesotrophic to moderately eutrophic C. entis is most common in the narrows and in the north basin, while the more eutrophic C. bifurcatus is among the dominant chironomids of the south basin (Figs. 1, 5, 7) present in the same locality and especially the early instars difficult to separate. The inverse of Dyar's Rule or 0.71 is more useful in order to identify earlier instars. This rule is applicable for all examined chironomid larvae from Lake Winnipeg and is further discussed in Saether (2009; 2010a, b; 2011). The head capsule lengths of the instars of are given in Fig. 9. For both species the variations in head capsule lengths were the median ±11–25%, and the median of one instar was 50–56% higher than the preceding instar. The variation thus is somewhat larger than in the other species examined from Lake Winnipeg and the difference between instars is slightly smaller. (57%–63% in other examined species). The larger than normal range probably is caused by the spring generation being slightly larger than the fall generation.
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) | 0.006 | 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".