MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021165495 · doi:10.5539/ijb.v4n2p159

Sediment Profiling of the Nesting Grounds of Horseshoe Crabs at East Peninsular Malaysia

2012· article· en· W2021165495 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B. Akbar John, S. Sihin, B. Y. Kamaruzzaman, K.C.A. Jalal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Islamic University Malaysia
KeywordsSedimentMonsoonHorseshoe crabOceanographyMangroveGeologySortingFisheryGeographyGeomorphologyBiologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Horseshoe crabs prefer beaches with loosely packed sediment for the nesting of their eggs. In present study, Sediment profile at the observed the nesting grounds of horseshoe crabs along the east peninsular Malaysian coast were investigated. Two sampling sites (Balok and Pekan) were observed to be the nesting grounds of horseshoe crabs along the Pahang coast, east coast Malaysia. Mean sediment size analysis (ø phi) showed that during the non-monsoon and monsoon seasons, the distribution of sediment at the nesting grounds was mostly were of median sediment (1.88±0.378ø) and finer sediment (2.249±0.114ø) at Balok station respectively. Whereas, the distribution of sediment at the Pekan nesting ground was median sediment (1.073±0.388ø) at non monsoon and coarse sediment (0.641±0.075ø) at monsoon season. The nature of sediments were of moderately well sorted in both the sampling stations. There was no significant difference in sediment size or sorting value during monsoonal cycle. The results clearly showed that the sediment nature at the Balok and Pekan are still conducive for the better nesting of horseshoe crabs.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BiologySame topicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomyFrench-language works237,207