MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changes in midge (Diptera: Chironomidae) populations of sub-arctic supratidal vernal ponds in response to goose foraging

2001· article· en· W2545135934 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Brian Milakovic, T. J. Carleton, Robert L. Jefferies

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaArctic Goose Joint Venture
KeywordsChironomidaeSalt marshEcologyBayMarshVegetation (pathology)BiologyBiomass (ecology)WetlandGeographyLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grubbing and grazing by lesser snow geese (Anser caerulescens caerulescens) have led to loss of terrestrial vegetation and changes in the hydrology, chemistry and biology of shallow vernal ponds in a supratidal marsh at La Pérouse Bay, Manitoba, on the Hudson Bay coast. Chironomid populations in ponds have been examined because they are an important food source for ducks and shore birds, and are also widely used as ecological indicators of change. Seventy ponds were sampled during the summers of 1996 and 1997. They were located within a densely vegetated freshwater area, a relatively undamaged salt marsh and a degraded salt marsh where loss of vegetation had occurred as a result of goose foraging. Principal Components Analysis indicated that of 21 environmental descriptors, salinity was the primary gradient distinguishing ponds. Ponds in the degraded marsh that dried out early were the most saline (8 to 30‰) and those in the freshwater area the least saline (< 2‰). Densities of chironomids approached 22 000 m-2 with the highest numbers recorded from salt-marsh ponds. Estimated chironomid biomass in all ponds ranged between 0.7 and 9.0 g dry wt m-2 which reflected differences in species composition of ponds. Freshwater ponds contained seven species from six genera of which five did not occur in the other two habitats. Ponds in the undamaged salt marsh contained five species from five genera of which two were restricted to the area, while only the large-bodied Cricotopus (Isocladius) sp., most likely ornatus, was representative of ponds in the degraded salt marsh.

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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations34
Published2001
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207