MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976746166 · doi:10.1139/z03-045

Demography and viability analyses of a diamondback terrapin population

2003· article· en· W1976746166 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPopulationPopulation viability analysisMark and recaptureNest (protein structural motif)Population growthVital ratesJuvenileReproductionZoologyEcologyPopulation modelDiamondback mothDemographyEndangered speciesHabitatPlutellaLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diamondback terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin, is a long-lived species with special management requirements but quantitative analyses to support management are lacking. I analyzed mark–recapture data and constructed an age-classified matrix population model to determine the status and viability of the only known diamondback terrapin population in Rhode Island. Female diamondback terrapins were captured, marked, and recaptured while nesting during 1990–2001. Population growth rate (λ) was 1.034 (95% confidence interval = 1.012–1.056). For the preceding 5 years, however, abundance had been stable at about 188 breeding females. Adult apparent survival was high but declined slightly by 0.14% per year from 0.959 in 1990 to 0.944 in 2000. Recruitment of breeding females also decreased during the study period; therefore, survival was increasingly a greater component of population growth rate. Juvenile survival was 0.565 at λ = 1.034 and 0.446 at λ = 1. Both retrospective (mark–recapture) and prospective (matrix population model) analyses showed a greater influence of survival versus reproduction on population growth. Population- model projections showed that capping nests to improve reproductive success could increase population growth rate, but the magnitude of increase was positively related to pre-reproductive survival, therefore negating nest capping as a remedy for declining populations or poor survival. Extinction attributable to demographic stochasticity is unlikely.

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.

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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.223 · 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