MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166346299 · doi:10.1017/s0025315405011501

Reproduction and longevity of <i>Aurelia labiata</i> in Roscoe Bay, a small bay on the Pacific coast of Canada

2005· article· en· W2166346299 on OpenAlexaffabout
D.J. Albert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
Canadian institutionsBamfield Marine Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayOceanographyJellyfishJuvenileCnidariaPopulationFisheryBiologyEcologyGeographyGeologyCoralDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reproduction by the moon jelly, Aurelia labiata, was observed in a small bay on the west coast of Canada. The bay is located in an area isolated from human contact except in the summer, is sheltered from wind and wave action by mountain ridges, and has limited tidal flushing due to a gravel bar at the entrance that dries at lower low water. Planulae appeared in brood sacs beginning in October and November. The planulae were shed by the end of March and ephyrae emerged in June. Juvenile medusae were estimated to constitute about 30—40% of medusae in the bay in each of the two years of this study. Medusae remained in the bay throughout the year. There was no major visible mortality in the adult population during the two year observation period. Medusae appear to be lost from the bay as a result of tidal flushing. It is argued that in Roscoe Bay Aurelia labiata medusae live for more than one year and that up to 40% of the adult medusae may be two years of age or older.

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 score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations28
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United KingdomSame topicMarine Invertebrate Physiology and EcologyFrench-language works237,207