Rocky shore macroalgae communities of the Azores (Portugal) and the British Isles : a comparison for the development of ecological quality assessment tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis focuses on intertidal seaweed communities on rocky shores and was planned to provide solid scientific background for the application of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) to the Azores based on the tool developed for British shores. The main structuring factors for rocky shore intertidal communities are briefly described and characterized for each of the two regions. Rocky shore intertidal seaweed communities of the British Isles and the Azores are compared based on presence/absence data recorded in single occasion visits to individual stretches of shore. The existing numerical indices used for the assessment of ecological quality for the WFD in the British Isles and in northern Spain have been tested for Azorean shores and adaptations proposed in order to incorporate differences between regions. A new alternative index is proposed for the Azores and possibly for remaining Macaronesian archipelagos that combines features used in the British Isles and in northern Spain. A first account is given of seaweed communities and their ecological quality classification at two rocky shores affected by shallow water hydrothermal activity. In the Azores, this is the closest to polluted shores, with which to test quality assessment tools. The accumulation of heavy metals in different seaweeds has been quantified and compared between the vicinity of shallow water hydrothermal activity and of urban development in the Azores. The concentration of heavy metals in Fucus spiralis has been compared between samples affected by hydrothermal seeps in the Azores and by acid mine drainage in the British Isles. Preliminary culture experiments provide an insight on the influence of temperature and acidity on the growth and photosynthesis of F. spiralis, as measures of metal accumulation capacity of this species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".