MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375945444 · doi:10.1670/21-073

Larval Life History of Coastal Tailed Frogs (Ascaphus truei) Across an Elevational Gradient in Northern California: Implications for a Changing Climate

2023· article· en· W4375945444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adrian D. Macedo, Justin A. Demianew, Justin M. Garwood, J. Reiß

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Herpetology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetamorphosisBiologyLarvaRange (aeronautics)EcologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coastal Tailed Frogs (Ascaphus truei) range across the Pacific Northwest from northern California, USA, into British Columbia, Canada, and from sea level to >2,131 m. Previous work has shown a variable larval period but has not clearly separated elevational from latitudinal effects. Therefore, we examined size at beginning of metamorphosis, larval period, individual growth rates, and timing of metamorphosis of A. truei populations along an elevational gradient from 152 to 2,131 m across a small latitudinal range (29 km) to reduce potential latitudinal effects, all within the Klamath Mountains of northern California. We sampled larvae at 15 study sites, of which we used 6 sites as intensive capture–mark–recapture (CMR) locations, and the other 9 for supplemental data on larval period and size at metamorphosis. In CMR sites, we individually marked tadpoles to determine within-season growth rates. We found that the A. truei larval period in these populations ranges from 2 yr in low and middle elevations to ‡3 yr in high-elevation populations. We also found decreased size at beginning of metamorphosis and increased growth rates of tadpoles with increasing elevation. Our high-elevation populations had the longest larval period documented in California. The associations of growth and timing of metamorphosis to elevation in A. truei populations suggest that responses to changing climate may differ across elevations.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HerpetologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207