MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745564032 · doi:10.1016/j.rmb.2017.07.002

Updated checklist and zoogeographic remarks of benthic amphipods (Crustacea: Peracarida: Amphipoda) of two coastal lagoons in the western Gulf of Mexico

2017· article· en· W2745564032 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrea Raz-Guzmán, Luis A. Soto

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Mexicana de Biodiversidad · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersComisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Gobierno de MéxicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsAmphipodaPeracaridaSeagrassBenthic zoneEcologyGeographyTemperate climateOceanographyEstuaryCrustaceanHabitatBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estuarine amphipods of the western Gulf of Mexico represent mostly eurythermal species. Sampling took place in Summer and Winter on seagrass beds, macroalgae and bare substrates, at 75 localities in Laguna Madre and 34 in Laguna de Tamiahua, Mexico, with a Renfro beam net and an otter trawl. A total of 19,398 specimens of 19 species were collected. Cymadusa compta was dominant in both lagoons with 63.4% of the total abundance. First records are 7 species for Laguna Madre and 11 species for Laguna de Tamiahua. A literature review updated the number of species from the 19 collected to 29. An analysis of the species’ distribution produced 3 zoogeographic patterns: Warm and Caribbean, Warm Temperate and Caribbean, and temperate. A hierarchical cluster analysis of the geographic distribution data of the 29 species produced 2 assemblages: one with an affinity for the warmer regions of the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea and Brazil, and another associated with the temperate conditions of the northern Gulf of Mexico, the eastern USA, Canada and Argentina, each group indicating a preference for either higher or lower water temperatures.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Mexicana de BiodiversidadSame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207