MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981986333 · doi:10.1139/z06-142

The effect of artificial light on male breeding-season behaviour in green frogs, <i>Rana clamitans melanota</i>

2006· article· en· W1981986333 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicImpact of Light on Environment and Health
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLight pollutionArtificial lightNocturnalEcologySeasonal breederPopulationZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial night lighting (or ecological light pollution) is only now gaining attention as a source of long-term effects on the ecology of both diurnal and nocturnal animals. The limited data available clearly indicate that artificial light can affect physiology and behaviour of animals, leading to ecological consequences at the population, community, and ecosystem levels. Aquatic ecosystems may be particularly vulnerable to such effects, and nocturnally breeding animals such as frogs may be especially affected. To address this potential, we quantify the effects of artificial light on calling and movement behaviour in a rural population of male green frogs ( Rana clamitans melanota (Rafinesque, 1820)) during the breeding season. When exposed to artificial light, frogs produced fewer advertisement calls and moved more frequently than under ambient light conditions. Results clearly demonstrate that male green frog behaviour is affected by the presence of artificial light in a manner that has the potential to reduce recruitment rates and thus affect population dynamics.

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)0.001
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 score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.204 · 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