MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1803254692 · doi:10.21083/surg.v3i2.1115

Effects of aerial exposure on size of the common barnacle (Semibalanus balanoides), an inhabitant of the intertidal zone in St. Andrews, New Brunswick

2010· article· en· W1803254692 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Katie Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueSURG Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBarnacleIntertidal zoneBiologyEcologyOceanographyCrustaceanGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survival in the intertidal zone for sessile marine invertebrates means enduring the drastic changes in environmental conditions that comes with tide cycling. An influential repercussion for Semibalanus balanoides, the common barnacle, is changes in food accessibility. As a filter-feeder, this intertidal organism does not obtain the required nutrients for growth when exposed to air and, as a result, experiences a compromised growth rate along with a limited body size. A four-day (August 16th-19th, 2009) field-based study was conducted at Indian Point in St. Andrews, New Brunswick to examine how duration of aerial exposure affects rostro-carinal length. Twenty 10cm x 10cm sites were sampled within which the total number of S.balanoides individuals was counted and rostro-carinal lengths of fifty individuals were measured. In support of the predicted results, this study shows that aerial exposure limits size in S.balanoides. This negative relationship between duration of aerial exposure and size is largely correlative, as supported by the R=0.9205 value obtained through application and analysis of the linear regression model. This information of how S.balanoides responds to the out of water experience may bring to light the significance of results from lab-based studies regarding environmental conditions that S.balanoides can tolerate.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSURG JournalSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207