MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142226815 · doi:10.1139/z03-124

Cannibalism and density-dependent mortality in the wolf spider<i>Pardosa milvina</i>(Araneae: Lycosidae)

2003· article· en· W2142226815 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christopher M. Buddle, Sean E. Walker, Ann L. Rypstra

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLouisiana Board of RegentsOhio Board of Regents
KeywordsWolf spiderCannibalismBiologySpiderEcologyArthropodPopulation densityPopulationZoologyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cannibalism is an important regulating mechanism in many terrestrial and aquatic arthropod communities. Spider ecologists have suggested that cannibalism with wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) in the genera Schizocosa and Pardosa is common and can act in population regulation. This hypothesis was tested with the species Pardosa milvina (Hentz), a small wolf spider that shows high densities in disturbance-driven ecosystems, including agricultural fields, throughout eastern North America. Under laboratory conditions, cannibalism was more common between pairs of P. milvina with the greatest differences in both mass and size. Field studies, in which we stocked natural densities, 2× natural densities, and 4× natural densities of P. milvina in enclosures placed in soybean fields, revealed that survival was lowest when conspecific density was highest, and larger individuals prevailed under high-density conditions. Thus, cannibalism likely plays an important role in governing populations of P. milvina, and the generality about the prevalence and importance of cannibalism with wolf spiders is supported.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations51
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207