MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967720505 · doi:10.1071/mf06098

Depth, sediment type, biogeography and high species richness in shallow-water benthos

2007· article· en· W1967720505 on OpenAlexaff
N Coleman, Wilfred R. Cuff, John Moverley, Anne Gason, Simon Heislers

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine and Freshwater Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessBenthic zoneFaunaBenthosEcologyOceanographySedimentInvertebrateEstuaryGeologyBiologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until recently, quantitative data on the benthic fauna along the coast of Victoria, south-east Australia, were restricted to those few areas (potentially) receiving commercial and industrial effluent. Collectively, studies in these areas covered ~50 to 60 km of a coastline that extends for 1000 km. Recently, samples were taken from depths of 10, 20 and 40 m along the entire coast, and analysis of these made it possible to examine benthic community structure throughout the region. Species richness is high along the entire length of the coast, supporting the argument that species richness in temperate areas is not always higher in the deep sea than in shallow water. The major factor influencing species richness was depth. Although slightly more individuals were collected from stations at 10-m depth than from stations at 40-m depth, almost three times as many species were found at the deeper stations. Sediment type also influenced species richness. For the stations at 40-m depth, species richness was ~25% higher in medium and coarse sands than in fine sand. Pattern analysis suggested some bioregionalisation of the fauna, but the effect of geographical location on affinities among sample stations was much less than the effects of depth and sediment type.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine and Freshwater ResearchSame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207