Ecological Guilds Display Different Morphological Traits in Tadpoles Inhabiting Neotropical Streams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tadpoles display a wide variation in both ecology and morphology. Their ecomorphological variation can be characterized by classification schemes based on specific traits or quantifying traits representing ecological differences. Here, we describe the ecomorphospace of tadpoles inhabiting Atlantic Forest streams and compare it to a widely used ecomorphological guild classification scheme. Ecomorphological traits were quantified from linear measurements of the larval body plan, oral disc position, and flagella presence. We recorded 19 tadpole species classified into seven ecomorphological guilds. Nektonic and neustonic species were clear-cut segregated from the remaining guilds. Nonetheless, the benthic-nektonic axis of ecomorphological variation harbors an intermediary guild between the nektonic and the benthic species. A clustering approach failed to retrieve the ecomorphological guilds primarily by not discerning differences among benthic specialized guilds. Hence, despite the common application of ecomorphological traits to characterize tadpole functional diversity, it seems that alternative traits are necessary to achieve such a goal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".