MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527482648 · doi:10.22179/revmacn.17.400

Gastropods living in a bird nest, and others pulmonate shells found in avian nests of Argentina

2014· article· en· W2527482648 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sergio E. Miquel, Paola Turienzo, Osvaldo Di Iorio

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMollusks and Parasites Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)EcologyBiologyHabitatBird nestInvertebratePopulationZoologyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gastropods living in a bird nest, and others pulmonate shells found in avian nests of Argentina Abstract: Bird’s nests are examples of specialized habitats that are inhabited by a diverse suite of invertebrates, such as insects, spiders, pseudoscorpions, and ticks. A list of gastropods found in birds’ nests from Argentina are presented for the first time. A total of 138 specimens of gastropods, belonging to 11 species, 10 genera and 8 families of snails were present in 44 birds’ nests from 6 families in 6 provinces from Argentina. Only one population of Pupisoma latens , integrated by 58 specimens of different sizes, was found alive in a bird nest, being a new habitat of this species, described from aerial parts of trees. The rest of the species were dead specimens (fragments or empty shells), that can be tentatively related to bird diets. The most abundant species were pre-adults of Bulimulus b. bonariensis , and Succinea meridionalis. The nests of Anumbius annumbi , and Furnarius rufus from Buenos Aires province have the highest number of specimens. Specimens of freshwater snails ( Heleobia parchappii , Biomphalaria sp. and Drepanotrema sp.) were 13% in the total. This kind of list was known in Canada, United States and France.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias NaturalesSame topicMollusks and Parasites StudiesFrench-language works237,207