MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2404608427 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v130i1.1795

Remnant Freshwater Mussel Diversity in Rondeau Bay, Lake Erie

2016· article· en· W2404608427 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Scott M. Reid, Victoria Kopf, Anita LeBaron, Todd J. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityFisheries and Oceans CanadaMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and ForestryMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsDreissenaBayMusselZebra musselEndangered speciesFisheryFreshwater bivalveEcologyPopulationGeographyBiologyBivalviaMolluscaHabitatArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2014 and 2015, 27 sites in Rondeau Bay, Ontario, Canada, were surveyed for freshwater mussels. Rondeau Bay is a large coastal wetland on the north shore of Lake Erie. Twenty-three species were identified from 120 live mussels, 15 fresh whole shells, 329 weathered whole shells, and 1121 weathered valves. Live individuals of the following species were collected: Eastern Pondmussel (Ligumia nasuta; endangered in Canada), Giant Floater (Pyganodon grandis), Round Pigtoe (Pleurobema sintoxia;endangered in Canada), and Three-ridge (Amblema plicata). Fresh whole shells of the Mapleleaf (Quadrula quadrula; threatenedin canada) were also found. Most species (78%), including 7 species at risk, were collected only as weathered shells. These results indicate a substantial decline in freshwater mussel diversity since the Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion of Lake Erie. Evidence shows that a viable population of only Giant Floater remains.

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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist→Same topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior→French-language works237,207→