MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130636330 · doi:10.1139/z06-062

Effect of soil type on burrowing behavior and cocoon formation in the green-striped burrowing frog,<i>Cyclorana alboguttata</i>

2006· article· en· W2130636330 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David T. Booth

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilUniversity of Queensland
KeywordsAestivationBurrowBiologyEcologyWater contentGeotechnical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the effect of soil type on burrowing behaviour and cocoon formation during aestivation in the green-striped burrowing frog, Cyclorana alboguttata (Günther, 1867). Given a choice, frogs always chose to burrow in wet sand in preference to wet clay. Frogs buried themselves faster and dug deeper burrows in sandy soil. However, under my laboratory conditions, there was little difference in the pattern of soil drying between the two soil types. Frogs in both sand and clay soil experienced hydrating conditions for the first 3 months and dehydrating conditions for the last 3 months of the 6-month aestivation period, and cocoons were not formed until after 3 months of aestivation. After 6 months, there were more layers in the cocoons of frogs aestivating in sand than those aestivating in clay. Frogs were able to absorb water from sandy soil with water potentials greater than –400 kPa, but lost water when placed on sand with a water potential of –1000 kPa.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations27
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207