MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597039534 · doi:10.7274/sx61dj55c45

Relationships Between Benthic Organic Matter and Invertebrates in Sand Substrates of Northern Michigan Streams

2022· article· en· W2597039534 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Asako Melody Yamamuro

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenthic zoneInvertebrateSTREAMSOrganic matterEnvironmental scienceEcologyBenthosHydrology (agriculture)GeologyBiologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relationships between benthic organic matter (BOM) and macroinvertebrates have been well studied in streams with coarse substrates, but such relationships have been little studied in sand habitats, despite the abundance of sand in many streams. These relationships were investigated in sand habitats of 15 streams in three watersheds of the Ottawa National Forest, Michigan. BOM size composition and macroinvertebrate biomass in sand habitats differed among the three watersheds. However, at this broad spatial scale, BOM quantity and quality had little effect on invertebrate community metrics in sand habitats. Sand-dwelling invertebrates were dominated by gathering- collectors, primarily Chironomidae, in all streams. A 32-day colonization experiment demonstrated that at a local scale BOM content of sand significantly affected macroinvertebrate abundance, biomass, and functional feeding group composition. BOM content of sand habitats likely represents one factor, among many components of this dynamic habitat, which shapes overall macroinvertebrate communities.

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)0.001
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207