MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059392523 · doi:10.1080/14634980490461542

Great Lakes wetlands as amphibian habitats: A review

2004· review· en· W2059392523 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Ecosystem Health & Management · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWetlandHabitatEcologySpecies richnessEcosystemHabitat destructionAquatic ecosystemBiodiversityGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amphibians are highly adapted for life in wetland habitats. They form a major component of wetland faunas, and being both prey and predator, they are important in ecosystem functioning. Wetlands provide aquatic habitats that amphibians require for breeding, development, foraging, hibernation and refuge, and they form an interface with essential adjacent upland habitat. The size and type of wetlands as well as their spatial configuration and local structural characteristics are important features of these habitats for amphibian use. Because of their dependence on water, use of both aquatic and terrestrial habitat, permeable skin, and other biological characteristics, amphibians are considered to be excellent indicators of ecosystem health. Amphibians have a tremendous diversity of natural history characteristics and species differ in their patterns of habitat and microhabitat selection. Over 30 species of amphibians occur in wetlands within the Great Lakes Basin and an increasing trend in species richness exists from north to south across the region. Since European settlement, this region has lost over 50% of its wetlands. Loss rates of coastal and inland wetlands exceed 90% in some areas. Many restoration efforts are underway across the region but losses still exceed gains. No species have been extirpated from the entire basin but numerous local extirpations have occurred. However, nearly half of the species are officially designated as being of conservation concern somewhere in the basin. A more realistic estimate suggests that at least 2/3 of species are of concern. Habitat loss is reported as the primary cause of decline for 60% of species and habitat degradation by pollution is cited for 43% of the fauna. Considering the extent of wetland loss across the basin it seems reasonable to assume a similar magnitude of amphibian population loss. The current conservation status of amphibians indicates that Great Lakes wetlands are unhealthy ecosystems.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.026

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.282 · 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