MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2323864171 · doi:10.1242/jeb.087791

SLIMMING DOWN KEY TO SURVIVING WAVES

2013· article· en· W2323864171 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicola Stead

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntertidal zoneShoreStarsOceanographyGeologyGeographyPhysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With waves crashing at break-neck speeds of up to 15 m s−1, life on the rocky coastline isn't easy, and residents of this intertidal zone continuously face the risk of wave-induced damage or death. Furthermore, they have to remain adaptable to ever-changing conditions arising from storms or seasonal changes, and may also move to new, potentially even harsher, shorelines in search of food. Pisaster ochraceus, the northeastern Pacific sea star, is amongst the largest of the intertidal inhabitants and Kurtis Hayne and his supervisor Richard Palmer from the University of Alberta, Canada, wondered how they might cope with changes in wave force (p. 1717).To investigate, Hayne set out from the lab's second base at the Bamfield Marine Sciences Centre, British Columbia, Canada, to collect sea stars from both exposed and sheltered shorelines on nearby islands. Back at base, Hayne then weighed and photographed the sea stars, using the images to measure the length and width of the sea stars' arms. Hayne found that, on average, sea stars collected from exposed sites had arm widths that were 12% narrower. They also had shorter arms and overall had a decreased mass per unit arm length.So, in exposed areas with fast, breaking waves, sea stars had thinner arms, but would they maintain their spindly shape if they were moved to a more sheltered spot? To find out, Hayne painted identifying marks on the sea stars before transplanting them onto new shorelines, moving sea stars used to the rugged sea to quieter locations and, vice versa, transplanting plumper sea stars with long, thicker arms onto more exposed spots. When Hayne returned after 3 months, he found that those he had moved to new neighbourhoods had changed to fit in with the new environment: previous inhabitants of sheltered shorelines reduced the width of their arms, while sea stars transplanted from exposed spots to calmer waters grew fatter arms. By changing their body shape according to their environments, sea stars may reduce drag and lift and thus the risk of dislodgement in exposed areas, while growth in calmer shores may help them to resist overheating and aid reproduction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.021

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 head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicMarine and coastal plant biology→French-language works237,207→