MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972680856 · doi:10.7882/az.2001.007

Ecological notes on Crowned Snakes <i>Elapognathus coronatus</i> from the Archipelago of the Recherche in southwestern Australia

2001· article· en· W1972680856 on OpenAlexaff
David Pearson, Richard Shine, Xavier Bonnet, Andrew Williams, Ben J. Jennings, Olivier Lourdais

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Zoologist · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchipelagoSexual dimorphismMainlandPredationEcologyBiologyZoologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We collected 48 Crowned Snakes Elapognathus coronatus on Mondrain Island, in the Archipelago of the Recherche, in November 1999. Published data on the ecology of E. coronatus are based almost entirely on examination of museum specimens from mainland localities, and differ in several respects from our findings. Mondrain snakes are larger than their mainland conspecifics, and males grow much larger than females on Mondrain (mean adult snout-vent lengths of 456 vs 403 mm). In strong contrast, mainland snakes display little sexual size dimorphism (318 vs 321 mm SVL). Male crowned snakes on Mondrain differed from females in body shape as well as overall size, with males having relatively larger heads. The only prey items recorded on Mondrain were scincid lizards, whereas mainland conspecifics also feed frequently on frogs. Similar divergences between mainland and island populations have been reported in other snake species, suggesting that these peripheral populations represent a significant component of the overall ecological and morphological variation within each taxon.

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)0.000
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian ZoologistSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207