MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1901809142

Surveys of Basking Turtles in the Rivers of Northeastern Oklahoma, with Emphasis on Graptemys geographica (Common Map Turtle)

2015· article· en· W1901809142 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter V. Lindeman

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyTurtle (robot)TributaryRange (aeronautics)FisheryEcologyCartographyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I used binoculars and a spotting scope with a built-in digital camera to survey basking turtles at 29 sites on tributary drainages of the Arkansas River in four counties of northeastern Oklahoma and one county of southeastern Kansas. The predominant species recorded were Graptemys ouachitensis (Ouachita map turtle; 57% of all turtles) and Trachemys scripta (slider turtle; 25%), typical of results for rivers with similar assemblages of turtle species in the central United States. There were two notable results of the surveys. First, I photographed a male Graptemys geographica (common map turtle) twice at a site on the Spring River in Ottawa County; the record is only the third locality reported for the species in Oklahoma and is the first vouchered locality since the initial report of the species in Oklahoma in 1927. Prospects for finding additional localities for G. geographica in eastern Oklahoma are discussed, based on records in adjacent Kansas, Arkansas, and Missouri. Second, I observed Apalone spinifera (spiny softshell) at a higher frequency compared to basking turtle surveys that have been conducted elsewhere within its range. ©2014 Oklahoma Academy of Science

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of ScienceSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207