MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346555621 · doi:10.2298/abs150210067k

Updated distribution of the European pond turtle Emys orbicularis (Linnaeus, 1758) and its conservation issues in Serbia

2015· article· en· W2346555621 on OpenAlexaff
Imre Krizmanić, Aleksandar Urošević, Aleksandar Simović, Milivoj Krstić, Danko Jović, Rastko Ajtić, Marko Andjelković, Maja Slijepčević, Sonja Djordjević, Ana Golubović, Vladimir Žikić, Georg Džukić

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Biological Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
FundersScience and Engineering Research BoardMinistarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog RazvojaRufford Foundation
KeywordsTurtle (robot)GeographyDistribution (mathematics)BiotopeHabitatEcologyEnvironmental protectionFisheryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the European pond turtle (Emys orbicularis) has been included in studies for several decades, the information about its distribution and the state of populations in Serbia is still incomplete. The data collected from the available literature sources, and those based on the authors? own field investigations, indicate that E. orbicularis occupies a large part of the territory of the Republic of Serbia, preferring aquatic biotopes at lower altitudes. We compiled a list of 287 localities where the presence of the pond turtle has been recorded. Of those, 14% (40 localities) were known only from literature sources, localities added during our field investigations represent 82% (235 sites), 4% (12 localities) confirming literature data. We also gathered information on the main negative threats to the endurance of the pond turtle in Serbia. These are habitat pollution, degradation and destruction, and the spread of allochthonous invasive turtle species. Some protective and conservation measures are suggested in the conclusion.

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)0.001
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Biological SciencesSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207