MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953431353 · doi:10.11606/1807-0205/2019.59.29

Diet of bromeliad-frog Phyllodytes luteolus (Anura, Hylidae) in Atlantic Forest environments: what have the frogs been eating outside sandy coastal plains?

2019· article· en· W2953431353 on OpenAlexaff
Marcio Marques Mageski, Elaine Costa Campinhos, Charles Duca, Maria Carolina Stein, Melissa Peron de Oliveira, Rute B. G. Clemente‐Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenuePapéis Avulsos de Zoologia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Espírito SantoInstituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da BiodiversidadeCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsHylidaePredationCoastal plainEcologyTrophic levelBiologyAtlantic forestMainland

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge about the diet of anurans in different environments is essential to understanding important aspects of their trophic ecology. The bromeliad-frog Phyllodytes luteolus inhabits tank bromeliads in sandy coastal plains and lowland forests on the mainland, as well as a continental island in southeastern Brazil. In this work, we describe and analyze the diet of P. luteolus in three environments. We obtained the consumed prey items of 92 frogs (32 from sandy coastal plain, 32 from lowland forest and 28 from the island) via a stomach-flushing procedure. We found some variations in consumed prey composition and prey volume across populations, but ants represented the most important consumed prey in all environments. Only ants had a relative importance greater than 50%, which may suggest a specialized diet that transcends the sandy coastal plain environment.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapéis Avulsos de ZoologiaSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207