MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974912318 · doi:10.1139/z06-038

Oviposition-site selection by the toad <i>Melanophryniscus rubriventris</i> in an unpredictable environment in Argentina

2006· article· en· W1974912318 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francisco Javier Goldberg, Silvia Inés Quinzio, Marcos Vaira

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEphemeral keyBiologyAbiotic componentSpawn (biology)EcologyHabitatPredationLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oviposition-site selection plays an important role in the reproductive success of amphibians. In unpredictable environments where resources vary within a season, amphibians should select oviposition sites using parameters that can be easily evaluated, or spawn in several ponds to increase offspring survival. Melanophryniscus rubriventris (Vellard, 1947) uses shallow ephemeral ponds in an unpredictable montane-forest environment. During 40 consecutive days, we surveyed potential spawning sites and measured several biotic and abiotic factors to determine if any of these factors influenced breeding-site selection. We also described the spawning behavior of this species. Water temperature and pond level (flooded or not) were significant predictors of whether a pond was used or not. Warmer ponds would permit accelerated development of larvae in habitats where ponds are ephemeral and their presence unpredictable. Because of the short and unpredictable hydroperiods, it will be better to select a pond full of water instead of evaluating other pond characteristics that can be very variable. Mating pairs spread several egg masses to different sites but in the same pond. This behavior is likely a consequence of pairs avoiding interactions with intruding males and not as a strategy to enhance offspring survival.

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)0.000
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 score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations40
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207