MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045042510 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0812137106

An intertidal snail shows a dramatic size increase over the past century

2009· article· en· W2045042510 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan A. D. Fisher, Erika C. Rhile, Harrison Liu, Peter S. Petraitis

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersUniversity of PennsylvaniaAcademy of Natural Sciences of Drexel UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNucellaCarcinus maenasIntertidal zonePredationRocky shoreSnailMarine ecosystemEcosystemEcologyBiologyPredatorShoreFisheryOceanographyCrustaceanDecapodaGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in the shell architecture of marine snails enhance defenses and greatly improve survival against predators. In the northwest Atlantic Ocean, shorter and thicker shells have been reported for several species following the introduction of predatory Carcinus maenas crabs early in the 20th century. But we report that the shell lengths of Nucella lapillus actually increased by an average of 22.6% over the past century, with no evidence of shell thickening after correcting for shell length. The increases in shell length were greatest on sheltered shores, highlighting the interaction between wave exposure and the sampling period. Comparisons were based on archived shells collected in 1915-1922 from sites that were resampled in 2007. N. lapillus is an important member of North Atlantic marine ecosystems, and our results suggest that the impacts of historical changes in species' key morphological traits on marine ecosystems remain underappreciated.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207