Color Infrared Photography Is Not a Good Predictor of Macro Invertebrate Abundance on Mudflats Used by Shorebirds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The applicability of color infrared photography to indirectly predict prey abundance for shorebirds was tested by measuring the chlorophyll concentrations of primary producers on the mudflat surface at eleven migratory stopover sites of shorebirds in Georgia Strait, British Columbia during southward migration in July and August 2002. Many shorebirds are associated with regions of high coastal zone productivity, which may contribute to high prey abundance. Chlorophyll levels of primary producers contribute to the red tones of an infrared photograph. The hue of an infrared photograph was positively related to the chlorophyll concentration of the sediment surface across all sites. However, invertebrate density was not strongly related to surficial sediment chlorophyll concentration or photograph hue. The color infrared photography method is useful to quickly assess the surficial sediment concentration of the phytobenthos, but of low value to estimate invertebrate prey densities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it