MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056689908 · doi:10.1017/s0376892910000421

Effects of time since urbanization on anuran community composition in remnant urban ponds

2010· article· en· W2056689908 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara A. Gagné, Lenore Fahrig

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Conservation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUrbanizationAbundance (ecology)Species richnessHabitatGeographyRelative species abundanceBiodiversityEcologyHylaEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Low-density residential development, the fastest growing land use in the USA, is increasingly occurring adjacent to protected areas and in areas of high biodiversity. Thus, determining the environmental impacts, including the cumulative impacts, of proposed residential developments is a pressing challenge. The relative abundance and species richness of anurans in 19 ponds surrounded by landscapes with varying ages of residential development were measured, while endeavouring to control for local habitat quality effects on the anurans. Age of residential development was a predictor in the best models describing the responses of four individual anuran species and total anuran relative abundance. In particular, all of the best models of gray treefrog Hyla versicolor relative abundance included age of residential development as a predictor. Present-day anuran communities in remnant urban ponds are evidently responding to the effects of residential development that occurred up to 54 years in the past.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.180 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ConservationSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207