MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779090321 · doi:10.2994/sajh-d-17-00006.1

Survival of Amazonian Tadpoles Under Harsh Water-Limiting Conditions

2017· article· en· W2779090321 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Carlos Frederico Duarte Rocha, Daniel Cunha Passos, William E. Magnusson

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth American Journal of Herpetology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCanadian Foundation for Dietetic Research
KeywordsTadpole (physics)BiologyDesiccationHabitatAmazonianEcologyLimitingDesiccation tolerancePerennial plantAmazon rainforest

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tadpoles of some anuran species are known to survive out of water, but information is scarce or nonexistent for most species. We experimentally tested the survival ability of Amazonian tadpoles of six species out of water in conditions that simulated pond drying. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that tadpoles typical of habitats subject to fast drying would have higher capacity to survive without free water. We found higher survival rates for some species that usually occur in temporary ponds and the lowest one for a species from perennial ponds. However, we also found species from temporary ponds and streams with intermediate tolerance to desiccation. Tadpole survival differed among species and increased in function of body mass but was not related to the probability of each species being subject to periods without water in their habitats. Therefore, we reject the hypothesis that tadpole survival in the absence of water is a simple function of the probability of ponds drying.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth American Journal of HerpetologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207