MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008291459 · doi:10.13034/cysj-2014-018

The conditional benefits of cannibalism for wood frog tadpoles (Lithobates sylvaticus)

2014· article· en· W2008291459 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

VenueJournal of Student Science and Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithobatesCannibalismBiologyZoologyEcologyAmphibianLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wood frog tadpoles have an incredible ability to rapidly adapt to changing conditions, and when population densities become high tadpoles often become cannibalistic. Cannibalism potentially represents an ideal diet by composition, and should be beneficial to the growth and development of cannibalistic individuals. To test the relative efficacy of cannibalism to growth and development we conducted multiple feeding experiments. Results indicate that cannibalism represents a better alternative to starvation and provides some benefit to development and survival of tadpoles over low quality diets. However, cannibalism can be detrimental to tadpole growth and/or develop­ment relative to diets of similar protein content. Additionally, tadpoles raised individually appear to initially avoid consuming the cannibalistic diet, and may continue to do so until they face the risk of starvation. Conversely, when tadpoles were raised in groups providing them with compe­tition, they immediately fed upon the cannibal diet. Our results suggest that competition, rather than dietary quality is likely the driving force behind cannibalistic behaviour unless tadpoles oth­erwise face the risk of starvation.

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 score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

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 studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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