MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2105003255 · doi:10.1139/z08-116

An analysis of the horizontal burrow morphology of the oriental mole cricket (Gryllotalpa orientalis) and the distribution pattern of surface vegetation

2008· article· en· W2105003255 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chihiro Endo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurrowBiologyEcologyBotanyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food acquisition in animals that construct burrows for foraging is influenced by burrow structure associated with food distribution and searching patterns. The burrowing patterns of the oriental mole cricket ( Gryllotalpa orientalis Brumeister, 1838) (Orthoptera: Gryllotalpidae) were investigated based on analyses of the relation between burrow morphology and plant distribution. To assess differences between horizontal burrows (HB) with and without vertical burrows (VB), the number of branching points, the length of the horizontal parts, the plant ratio of the burrow area, and the burrow fractal dimension were compared. The size of the burrow area was positively related to the degree of branching. Cyperaceae and Gramineae occurred less frequently, whereas Hydrocotyle sibthorpioide Lam. and areas with no plants were more frequent in the burrow area than in the quadrat area. Juncaceae and Persicaria thunbergii (Siebold and Zucc.) H. Gross ex Nakai occurred more frequently and Lindernia crustacea (L.) F. Muell. occurred less frequently in HB without VB than in HB with VB. The ratio of burrow length to the number of branching points was not significantly different between HB with or without VB. HB with VB had a nearly planar structure (higher burrow fractal dimension) than that of HB alone. HB structure and plant composition of the burrow area differed depending on the presence of VB.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies→French-language works237,207→