MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1957533141 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2015-0274

Precise determination of aquatic plant wet mass using a salad spinner

2015· article· en· W1957533141 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tobias O. Bickel, Christine Perrett

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueensland Government
KeywordsMacrophyteBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceAquatic plantAquatic ecosystemSample (material)EcologyBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reliable assessment of macrophyte biomass is fundamental for ecological research and management of freshwater ecosystems. While dry mass is routinely used to determine aquatic plant biomass, wet (fresh) mass can be more practical. We tested the accuracy and precision of wet mass measurements by using a salad spinner to remove surface water from four macrophyte species differing in growth form and architectural complexity. The salad spinner aided in making precise and accurate wet mass with less than 3% error. There was also little difference between operators, with a user bias estimated to be below 5%. To achieve this level of precision, only 10–20 turns of the salad spinner are needed. Therefore, wet mass of a sample can be determined in less than 1 min. We demonstrated that a salad spinner is a rapid and economical technique to enable precise and accurate macrophyte wet mass measurements and is particularly suitable for experimental work. The method will also be useful for fieldwork in situations when sample sizes are not overly large.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations113
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyFrench-language works237,207