MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604939635 · doi:10.1002/aqc.2768

Predation by invasive signal crayfish on early life stages of European barbel may be limited

2017· article· en· W2604939635 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon H. Copp, Michael Godard, Lorenzo Vilizzi, Adam Ellis, William D. Riley

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
KeywordsBarbelCrayfishPacifastacusBiologyCarapaceFisheryPredationLarvaZoologyEcologyCrustaceanFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To determine whether or not signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus and native white‐clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes prey on European barbel Barbus barbus eggs, interstitial free‐embryos and emergent larvae, experiments were undertaken in salmonid (substratum) incubators (six treatments, four controls) fitted with video recorders. No corpses or remains of emergent barbel larvae or eggs, or parts thereof, were observed in any of the incubators containing buried eggs, and no emergent larvae showed any sign of attack. However, video evidence of a signal crayfish catching and consuming a barbel larva was obtained. There were no statistically significant differences between white‐clawed and signal crayfish either in carapace length or weight at the beginning and end of the experiments. The conservation implications of these results are discussed.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsSame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207