MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1982938659 · doi:10.1139/z07-066

Effects of flood suppression on natricine snake diet and prey overlap

2007· article· en· W1982938659 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul M. Hampton, Neil B. Ford

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTexas Parks and Wildlife Department
KeywordsPredationBiologyCrayfishFlood mythEcologyFloodplainCompetition (biology)ZoologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organisms may become adapted to disturbances when these disturbances occur periodically and at intermediate intensity. To investigate the effects of flood suppression, this study compared diet and competition of semi-aquatic snakes during flood (2000–2001) and no flood (2003–2005) years. Three natricine species, Nerodia erythrogaster (Forster in Bossu, 1771), Nerodia fasciata (L., 1766), and Thamnophis proximus (Say in James, 1823), were palpated for prey items in an east Texas floodplain under both conditions. Prey items were classified as crayfish, salamanders, anurans, or fish. Simpson’s diversity index of prey, frequency of consumed prey type, and prey importance values were compared between flood and no flood years. Pianka’s index of niche overlap was used to compare changes in diet overlap between species in the years with floods and those without. In the absence of floods, the number of prey types consumed by N. erythrogaster and T. proximus decreased. The frequency of prey types consumed during flood years was significantly different from the period of flood suppression for all three species. The order of prey importance also changed in the absence of floods for all three snake species. Without floods, diet overlap decreased between N. erythrogaster and the other two species; however, overlap between N. fasciata and T. proximus doubled.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.193
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→