MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085763248 · doi:10.1890/0012-9623-95.3.250

SEAWEEDS AS ECOSYSTEM ENGINEERS

2014· article· en· W2085763248 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cortney A. Watt, Ricardo A. Scrosati

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Ecological Society of America · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntertidal zoneRocky shoreIntertidal ecologyAscophyllumHabitatEcosystem engineerEcologyFoundation speciesFucusCanopyEcosystemPrimary producersBenthic zoneAbundance (ecology)AlgaeOceanographyGeographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canopy-forming seaweeds are often considered as important foundation species or ecosystem engineers. In wave-sheltered rocky intertidal habitats in Atlantic Canada, macroalgal canopies are composed primarily of Ascophyllum nodosum and secondarily of Fucus spp. Field experiments revealed that the effects of these canopies on benthic communities (considering primary producers and consumers) depend on the level of environmental stress that is determined by tides. Positive canopy effects occur at high and middle elevations, where canopies ameliorate the otherwise harsh conditions during low tides, but no significant effects occur at low elevations, where conditions remain mild during low tides regardless of canopy presence. Canopies of fucoid algae covering the intertidal zone during a low tide on a wave-sheltered rocky shore in Nova Scotia, Canada. Photograph by R. A. Scrosati. This photograph illustrates the data paper “Experimental and mensurative data on the abundance of primary producers and consumers from intertidal habitats in Canada” by Cortney A. Watt and Ricardo A. Scrosati, which appeared in Ecology 95(5):1429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-0071.1

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Ecological Society of AmericaSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207