MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of a fire on a population of treefrogs (Scinax cf. alter, Lutz) in a restinga habitat in southern Brazil

2008· article· en· W1975510125 on OpenAlexfundno aff
CFD. Rocha, CV. Ariani, Vanderlaine Amaral de Menezes, Davor Vrcibradic

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade do Estado do Rio de JaneiroConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCanadian Foundation for Dietetic Research
KeywordsBiologyPopulationEcologyHabitatPredationVegetation (pathology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The area of the Dunas da Joaquina, in Santa Catarina island, contains one of the most important remnants of restinga habitat in Santa Catarina State, southern Brazil. In December 2003, a fire occurred in a portion of this area, affecting most of the vegetation, including the bromeliad community. In this study, the density of individuals and the diet composition of the bromelicolous treefrog Scinax cf. alter were compared between the area affected by the fire and an adjacent unburned area. One-hundred-and-fifty-eight ground bromeliads (Vriesea friburguensis) were dissected and searched for the presence of treefrogs among their leaves. We found 30 frogs in 29.5% (23/78) of the bromeliads from the unburned site, with a mean of 1.3 frogs per rosette, and 15 frogs in 12.5% (10/80) of the bromeliads from the burned site, with a mean of 1.6 frogs per rosette. Eight (27%) of the frogs from the unburned site and eleven (73%) of those from the burned site had empty stomachs. Frogs from the burned site also contained less prey per stomach than those from the unburned site. The data suggest that the fire has negatively affected the local population of Scinax cf. alter, though it is possible that the population can recover.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of BiologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207