Does Shell Accumulation Matter in Micro-Scale Land Snail Surveys?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
land snails are most often surveyed to generate inventories with sites often less than 1 ha in extent and sampling taking place in microhabitats within the site that researchers consider likely to harbor snails (cameron & Pokryszko, 2005; menez, 2001, 2007). the most cost effective approach to site-level sampling has been suggested as a combination of bulk sampling of litter/soil and time restricted search (emberton et al., 1996). this requires a single visit to each site, and the combination of methods enables the investigator to maximize the likelihood of finding both micro (< 5 mm) and macro (≥ 5 mm) snails (solymos et al., 2007). this approach often relies on dead shells as a probabilistic indicator that a given species is present (thurman et al., 2008) because several constraints (remote locations, investigator availability, weather conditions) may not enable surveys to be undertaken during the species’ activity periods. assessing species presence on the basis of dead shells can be realistic, given the rather sedentary and cryptic behavior of land snails, and in most cases gives comparable results at the site scale (rundell & cowie, 2003). recently, there is an increase in surveys that are addressing microhabitat-scale ecological differences regarding the relative abundances and species compositions of communities (e.g., under logs vs. leaf litter) within a site (Kappes et al., 2006; solymos & Pall-Gergely, 2007). taphonomic issues (e.g., differential preservation of shells in different microhabitats) and biases introduced by sampling methods with different selectivity to dead specimens might become increasingly important as spatial scale decreases. We carried out a field experiment in dolines (sinkholes, large karstic depressions) of the aggtelek karst area, hungary, to investigate malacoloGia, 2009, 51(2): 389−393
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it