MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106809974 · doi:10.2744/ccb-0793.1

Impact of the Seasonal Invasion of Phragmites australis (Common Reed) on Turtle Reproductive Success

2010· article· en· W2106809974 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ryan M. Bolton, Ronald J. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueChelonian Conservation and Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNature Conservancy of CanadaNature ConservancyUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsPhragmitesBiologyTurtle (robot)EcologyHabitatNest (protein structural motif)Invasive speciesIntroduced speciesRange (aeronautics)Wetland

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A nonnative haplotype of Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel has recently expanded its range to become a dominant invasive species in many areas of North America and has thereby become a conservation concern. It is highly aggressive and outcompetes surrounding vegetation by resource competition. Also, by successfully modifying the habitat, P. australis can displace native plant communities and negatively affect other organisms. Phragmites australis abundance has increased significantly at Long Point, Ontario, Canada, a highly sensitive area where 6 freshwater turtle species nest. At these high latitudes, turtles rely upon open, unshaded areas to provide adequate solar heat for nesting and select nest sites based on specific physical characteristics at the time of oviposition. The rapid expansion of P. australis has reduced suitable nesting habitat for many turtle species because the plants' growth during a season alters the microenvironment of turtle nests during incubation, particularly affecting nest temperature, the most important factor for embryo development. Phragmites australis is highly exploitative, and its uncontrolled invasion threatens the reproductive success of freshwater turtle species at Long Point and much of North America.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

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

Citations45
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChelonian Conservation and BiologySame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207