MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964795792 · doi:10.2994/1808-9798-3.3.244

Conservation Status of Caiman latirostris (Crocodylia: Alligatoridae) in Disturbed Landscapes of Northwestern Uruguay

2008· article· en· W1964795792 on OpenAlexaff
Claudio Borteiro, Francisco Luís Gutiérrez Vela, Marcelo Tedros, Francisco Kolenc

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth American Journal of Herpetology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsAdidas (Canada)
FundersNorthwestern University
KeywordsAbundance (ecology)BiologyHabitatEndangered speciesEcologyPopulationRelative species abundanceGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demographic studies on crocodilians in subject to strong human disturbance habitats are scarce, particularly in the Neotropical Region. This work provides the first survey data of abundance and population size structure of a neotropical caiman, Caiman latirostris, in disturbed habitats of northwestern Uruguay (30°S, 57°W). We conducted nocturnal surveys in agriculture impoundments (2–116 ha) of the Ñaquiñá and Lenguazo stream basins during summer, from 2001 to 2004. About 81% of impoundments were inhabited by caiman, with relative abundance indices between 2.1 and 4.4 × km−1. Population size structure in the study area was similar throughout the study period; sub-adults from 50 to 119 cm of total length were the most abundant (57–78%), followed by adults (25–33%), and juveniles (6–22%). Relative abundance indices suggested that C. latirostris is not seriously endangered in contrast to previous local reports. The construction of agriculture impoundments in northwestern Uruguay for irrigation of rice and sugar cane seem to have been favored C. latirostris, as indicated by population size structure.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth American Journal of HerpetologySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207