MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991672167 · doi:10.1139/z09-065

Orientation and dispersal of hatchling Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) from experimental nests

2009· article· en· W1991672167 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael J. Pappas, Justin D. Congdon, Bruce J. Brecke, Joshua Capps

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Army Corps of Engineers
KeywordsHatchlingBiological dispersalBiologyEcologyNest (protein structural motif)HabitatPopulationHatchingDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We determined initial dispersal directions of 1052 naïve and 278 experienced hatchling Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii (Holbrook, 1838)) in experimental arenas in a variety of settings. Dispersal of naïve hatchlings was nonrandom in 7 of 10 sites. All nonrandom dispersal patterns suggested hatchlings primarily used vision to orient toward dark far horizons, particularly those associated with riparian habitats. We found no evidence that hatchlings use positive geotaxis, olfaction, humidity gradients, or scent trailing of other individuals during dispersal. Despite the lack of relationships between the changing position of the sun and relationships between nest sites and wetlands, patterns of dispersal were different for hatchlings released in the morning and late afternoon at two sites. Comparisons of the dispersal of naïve and translocated experienced hatchlings (those with previous exposure to environmental cues) suggest that hatchlings develop a sun compass within 2 days of emergence from nests. Based on all nonrandom dispersals of hatchlings at arenas, the estimated maximum perception distance of hatchlings was 325 m. In some situations, forest succession, agriculture activities, and introduction of pine trees may increase risks faced by hatchlings dispersing from nests by reducing their ability to find wetlands.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207