MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Invertebrate and lizard abundance is greater on seabird-inhabited islands than on seabird-free islands in the Marlborough Sounds,New Zealand

2002· article· en· W2544298248 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeabirdInvertebrateAbundance (ecology)Trophic levelEcologyNutrientBiologyFood webPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Addition of nutrients to an ecosystem may increase abundances of organisms at different trophic levels. Seabirds add nutrients to the islands on which they live. Our aim was to determine whether plants, invertebrates, and lizards are utilizing nutrients provided by seabirds and whether the addition of nutrients was correlated with an increase in arthropod and reptile abundance. A higher index of abundance was found for invertebrates and lizards on islands with seabirds than on islands without seabirds in the Marlborough Sounds, New Zealand. Seabird-derived nutrients were identified in the tissues of plants, invertebrates, and lizards on seabird-inhabited islands. Nutrient addition was found to increase abundance of animals from different trophic levels, but the patterns shown were not those expected from classical, top-down, theories of food web regulation.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.203 · 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