MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Microhabitat Use and Orientation to Water Flow Direction by Tadpoles of the Leptodactylid Frog Thoropa miliaris in Southeastern Brazil

2002· article· en· W2170753146 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Carlos Frederico Duarte Rocha, Monique Van Sluys, Helena Godoy Bergallo, Maria Alice S. Alves

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Herpetology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade do Estado do Rio de JaneiroCanadian Foundation for Dietetic Research
KeywordsBiologyOrientation (vector space)ZoologyWater flowEcologyAnatomyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frog larvae develop in a wide array of microhabitats including permanent and nonpermanent ponds, rivers, lakes, tank bromeliads, and other water reservoirs (Duellman and Trueb, 1994). A unique form of development and microhabitat specialization occurs in tadpoles of leptodactylid frogs of the genus Thoropa: tadpoles live in the film of water on rock surfaces at the wet borders of waterfalls in rain-forest areas, and in rocky fields of mountain ranges of southeastern Brazil (Bokermann, 1965; Caramaschi and Sazima 1984; Cocroft and Heyer, 1988). The tadpoles of this genus have an elongated, dorsoventrally compressed body, reduced fins, an expanded and flattened abdomen with an adherent ventral disk, and a long muscular tail, which, together with the labium, are used for movement and adhesion to the substrate (Bokermann, 1965; Wassersug and Heyer, 1983). Thoropa miliaris (Spix, 1824) occurs near freshwater bodies along the Atlantic rain forest of the states of Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Minas Gerais, and Espirito Santo in southeastern Brazil (Cocroft and Heyer, 1988) and also on rocky marine shores (Abe and Bicudo, 1991). Information available on microhabitat use by tadpoles of this species is restricted to general notes reporting the use of a very shallow film of current water on rock surfaces at the side of waterfalls with varying slopes, including vertical. These reports suggest that the tadpoles tend to remain with the head oriented against the water flow when adhered to the rock surface (Bokermann, 1965; Abe and Bicudo, 1991). However, there is no quantitative description of microhabitat use by this species. In this study, we analyze microhabitat use by T miliaris tadpoles to address the following questions. Do tadpoles orient randomly or selectively in relation to water flow? Do tadpoles tend to remain at the shallowest sites or use the available film of water indiscriminately? Do tadpoles occupy some slopes available on the waterfall surface more than others? Does water temperature where tadpoles occur differ from that of the main drainage of the waterfalls nearby?

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 score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
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 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

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HerpetologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207