MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The biology and ecology of lotic microturbellarians

2000· article· en· W2052849927 on OpenAlexaff
Jurek Kolasa

Bibliographic record

VenueFreshwater Biology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiatoms and Algae Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyHabitatRiver ecosystemPredationBiologyRange (aeronautics)Lake ecosystemPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1 More than 200 known species of Microturbellaria occur in running waters world-wide but discovery of many more is likely. Their population density varies greatly as a function of substratum, productivity, phenology and hydrology. The density may exceed 7 000 individuals m-2. The number of species in a single small sample may reach 20. 2 Many species appear to have microhabitat or stream section specialisation but community patterns are obscured to a certain extent by common and eurytopic species. The specialisation is particularly evident in the smaller, lower-order streams. 3 Some of this habitat specialisation is attributable to the ecological origin of species that may include terrestrial, underground, marine and lentic species pools. 4 Feeding habits of Microturbellaria range from omnivory to specialised predation. 5 Quantitative field studies require extraction and examination of live specimens from samples. Such samples pose transportation and storage problems and must be processed within hours of collection. 6 Taxonomy is well resolved for the Northern Hemisphere but is likely to be a major challenge in other parts of the world. In any region, however, new species may demand caution while using current keys to their identification.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations36
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFreshwater BiologySame topicDiatoms and Algae ResearchFrench-language works237,207