Estimates of forest floor litter frog communities: A comparison of two methods
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Estimates of forest leaf litter frog density, mass, richness and diversity given by the widely used 8 m × 8 m large plot method (LPM) were compared with estimates obtained by a newly proposed method (small 2 m × 1 m plots with leaf removal; SPLR). The study site was an undisturbed area of the Atlantic Rainforest of Ilha Grande, an island located in the south of Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Twenty‐four LPM (totalling 1536 m 2 of forest floor) and 90 SPLR (totalling 180 m 2 of forest floor) were performed. The estimates obtained by the two methods differed markedly, indicating that even using a much smaller sampling area (11.7% of that of LPM), SPLR gave frog density estimates six times higher, and frog mass estimates approximately 2.5 times higher than estimates provided by LPM. The species richness and diversity obtained by the two methods were similar, despite the fact that the total area sampled with SPLR was much smaller. These data suggest that LPM may underestimate the abundance and biomass of leaf litter frogs in a given area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it