MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066326487 · doi:10.1017/s0032247400016491

Biological activity on a decaying caribou antler at Cape Herschel, Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, high Arctic Canada

2000· article· en· W2066326487 on OpenAlexaffabout
Antony J. Sutcliffe, Weston Blake

Bibliographic record

VenuePolar Record · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLichenArcticPermafrostEcologyCapeVascular plantVegetation (pathology)Arctic vegetationAntlerFaunaSphagnumInvertebrateFlora (microbiology)GeographyBiologyTundraPeatArchaeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the polar desert of the high Arctic, underlain by continuous permafrost and commonly snow-covered for much of the year, the paucity of plant growth might seem unsurprising. Although low temperatures and lack of moisture exert a strong influence on plant life and can greatly diminish the rate at which plants can grow, these are nevertheless not the only factors involved. Lack of mineral nutrients, in an environment where chemical weathering is inhibited, may play an even greater part. In consequence, where nutrient-rich decaying animal bones are present, it is not uncommon to find growing upon them a luxuriant vegetation of mosses and vascular plants, together with less spectacular algae and lichens, which show up in striking contrast to the barren ground around them. These microhabitats, in turn, carry their own fauna of invertebrates. This paper examines, in detail, one such specimen and its flora and fauna — a 2000-year-old shed caribou antler from the ground surface at Cape Herschel, Ellesmere Island, 78°N.

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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

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 studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations18
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolar RecordSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207