MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993480187 · doi:10.1017/s0954102014000303

Tanaidacea of the Amundsen and Scotia seas: an unexplored diversity

2014· article· en· W1993480187 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Krzysztof Pabis, Magdalena Błażewicz, Piotr Jóźwiak, David K. A. Barnes

Bibliographic record

VenueAntarctic Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of WarwickNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsFaunaOceanographyBenthic zoneGeologyNova scotiaGeographyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Scotia Arc and Amundsen Sea are contrasting regions within West Antarctica. The Scotia Sea shelf is well studied and central to the origin and diversity of the Southern Ocean benthic fauna, whilst the shelf of Amundsen Sea is one of the least studied shelf areas in the world; a ‘white spot’ on the map of benthic research. Here we report on the tanaidaceans collected using an epibenthic sledge on two expeditions, BIOPEARL 1 and 2, of the RRSJames Clark Rossin 2006 and 2008, respectively. This study represents the first analysis of the tanaidacean fauna of those two basins. Thirty-seven species were found in the Amundsen Sea from 500–1500 m depth and 51 species were found at depths ranging from 200–1600 m in the Scotia Sea. In the Scotia Sea, many species were unique to each of the study sites which may be evidence of allopatric speciation episodes. Site specificity was especially evident forTyphlotanaisandPseudotanais. Only three species were common to both basins. Around 90% of the species were previously undescribed. Our findings increase the number of the tanaidaceans known in the Southern Ocean by 50%.

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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations26
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntarctic ScienceSame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207