MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021993589 · doi:10.2298/abs1303015s

Morphological correlates of prey consumed by Podarcis melisellensis (Braun, 1877) and P. siculus (Rafinesque, 1810) (Sauria, Lacertidae) from two mainland regions in the eastern Adriatic area

2013· article· en· W2021993589 on OpenAlexaff
S. Stamenkovic, Rada Matić

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Biological Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
FundersMinistarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja
KeywordsPredationTrophic levelLacertidaeBiologyForagingSauriaLizardEcologyMainlandZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The correlation between trophic utilization and morphology was studied for two lizard species (Podarcis melisellensis and P. siculus) from two mainland localities in the eastern Adriatic area; this is the first report of trophic and morphometric data for P. melisellensis from mainland populations. Variance partitioning showed that most of the variation in morphological traits for the analyzed lizards was the result of differences between species, and to a lesser extent between sexes. Locality did not have a strong effect on the variation of morphological traits. Prey weight is the only characteristic of prey that generally exhibits correlations with morphological characteristics rather than prey size. The pattern of correlations is generally weaker for P. melisellensis than for P. siculus. Optimal foraging theory predictions were generally confirmed: P. siculus is more constrained by trophic resource availability, with a premium on larger and heavier prey consumed in the less productive locality (SM), which can be relaxed in more productive regions (KL). P. melisellensis shows such constraints only for males in the less productive region (SM). Females of both species consume heavier prey.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Biological SciencesSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207