MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094832322 · doi:10.1139/f08-034

Temporal and spatial concordance in community composition of phytoplankton, zooplankton, macroinvertebrate, crayfish, and fish on the Precambrian Shield

2008· article· en· W2094832322 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Michelle F. Bowman, Ron Ingram, Ron Reid, Keith M. Somers, Norman D. Yan, Andrew M. Paterson, George Emir Morgan, John M. Gunn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConcordanceBenthic zoneEcologyZooplanktonBiodiversityCommunity structurePhytoplanktonEnvironmental scienceTaxonCrayfishBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concordance among communities dictates how broadly we can extrapolate results derived from a set of ecosystems. We used Mantel tests to evaluate the degree of concordance in community composition among phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrate, crayfish, and fish in eight lakes near Dorset, Ontario, Canada. Spatial concordance across lakes at the decadal scale was stronger (mean Mantel r = 0.51, standard deviation (SD) = 0.20) than both intra-annual agreement (mean Mantel r = 0.38, SD = 0.20) and temporal concordance within a single lake (mean Mantel r = 0.20, SD = 0.15). The degree of temporal concordance was not related to climatic fluctuations, with the exception of increased spatial synchrony in phytoplankton communities in 1997. Strength of overall spatial concordance was most commonly related to variability in chemical attributes of the study lakes. An understanding of the determinants of concordance among taxon groups is germane to the advancement of ecology in general, as well as biodiversity conservation strategies, ecosystem monitoring, and impact diagnosis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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

Citations34
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207