MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2025633203 · doi:10.1139/z04-036

Condition-dependent behaviour among damselfly populations

2004· article· en· W2025633203 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dirk J. Mikolajewski, Frank Johansson, Tomas Brodin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsDamselflyBiologyLarvaOdonataInstarEcologyZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>Animal scienceFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body condition is predicted to influence behaviours such as activity, which in turn affects energy gain and survival. In this study we investigated (i) whether populations of the damselfly Lestes sponsa (Hansemann, 1823) differ in body condition and activity among lakes, and (ii) which body condition factors affect behaviour. We estimated last instar larval behaviour (measured as activity), body condition (measured as size, body mass, muscle mass, fat content, and time to emergence), and fish presence/absence in eight lakes. Body condition of larvae differed among lakes but the presence/absence of fish in lakes had no effect on body condition. Activity did not differ among lakes and was not affected by the presence/absence of fish in lakes. Activity was negatively related to size, body mass, muscle mass, and fat content, and positively related with time to emergence, suggesting that final-instar larvae in good condition are favouring development over growth to emerge earlier. This study highlights the importance of differences in condition among populations and among individuals.

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
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

Citations19
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→