MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2728085365 · doi:10.1016/0967-0653(96)80042-y

10.1016/0967-0653(96)80042-y

2000· article· en· W2728085365 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimpetIntertidal zoneBiologyGastropodaEcologySplashGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body size variation of the intertidal limpet Lottia digitalis (Rathke) and the factors responsible for maintaining it were examined at three central California intertidal sites differing in wave exposure. Limpet body size increased with increasing tidal height. This increase in size with tidal height was correlated with exposure to wave splash and migratory behavior. In areas of high and intermediate wave splash, there was a significant positive correlation between increased limpet size and tidal height, while in sheltered conditions there was no significant gradient in body size. Transplant experiments suggested that the size gradient could be maintained by the upward migration of large limpets and downward migration of small limpets. In the area with little size gradient, there was no significant directional migration of transplanted limpets. Limpets initially exhibited a fixed migratory response when displaced both within an area and between areas differing in exposure. However, after an acclimation period of 5 days in a new exposure condition, the response of transplanted L. digitalis was indistinguishable from that of limpets native to that condition. The findings suggest that both fixed short-term and flexible long-term migratory behavior are in part responsible for the maintenance of body size gradients.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0100.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9870.987

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.149
Teacher spread0.143 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knit→Same topicMarine and coastal plant biology→French-language works237,207→