MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2758152903 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2017-0464

Aquatic food web response to patchy shading along forested headwater streams

2018· article· en· W2758152903 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emily D. Heaston, Matthew J. Kaylor, Dana R. Warren

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriphytonRiparian zoneEnvironmental scienceSTREAMSBenthic zoneBiotaBiomass (ecology)BenthosEcologyShadingHydrology (agriculture)HabitatBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In forested streams, changes in age and structure of riparian vegetation have been shown to directly influence the amount of light reaching the stream benthos. The potential for light to directly impact primary productivity in forested streams is generally understood, but most field experiments exploring reach-scale in-stream light dynamics have evaluated large changes in riparian vegetation. Fewer studies have quantified influences of smaller changes in irradiance, particularly how patchy in-stream light developed with complex riparian forests affects stream biota. We applied patches of shade, covering ∼50% of three manipulation reaches, which were each paired with an unmanipulated reference reach. We quantified changes in stream light availability, benthic periphyton, and aquatic macroinvertebrate, fish, and salamander biomass using a before–after control–impact study design. Patchy shading decreased localized and reach-scale light and reduced periphyton, macroinvertebrate, fish, and salamander biomass in manipulation sites relative to the reference reaches. Results suggest that moderate changes in stream light, such as those that occur through stand development and small-scale disturbance processes, can impact stream biota through bottom-up processes.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→