MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6931841909 · doi:10.5683/sp2/pgcbpl

Replication data for: Barkley Sound intertidal long-term monitoring: rocky substrate methodology

2019· dataset· en· W6931841909 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntertidal zoneTransectShoreRocky shoreSound (geography)QuadratSubstrate (aquarium)Tidal flatCove

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1997 the Bamfield Marine Station (now Bamfield Marine Sciences Centre) established a long-term monitoring project to collect baseline data on the distribution and abundance of macroorganisms at three intertidal sites in Barkley Sound. Data is presented here for seaweed cover (%), understory cover (%) and invertebrate density for two sites on Wizard Islet. The third site located at the mouth of Grappler Inlet is discussed in the study report. Wizard Islet (48°51’29.5”N, 125°09’31”W) is located within the Deer Group Islands in Barkley Sound and has an area of 1.73 hectares at low tide. The sheltered site (with less wave exposure) is located on a 50m stretch of fixed rocky shore on the northeast side and is characterized by Fucus and Phyllospadix (seagrass). The exposed site is located on a 50m stretch of fixed rocky shore on the southwest side and is characterized by Egregia (feather-boa kelp), goose-necked barnacles and Alaria (brown alga). At both sites, a line of numbered tags spaced at 1m intervals at the same tidal height was installed. The tags denote the upper origin for 50 vertical transects. Fifteen tag numbers were chosen randomly, and transects were extended from the tags to the water. At the sheltered site, the tag numbers were 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 23, 24, 28, 35, 36, 40, 42, 48, 49. At the exposed site, they were 4, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 23, 26, 31, 32, 36, 42, 44, 45, 49. Sampling was done at tidal heights 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5m. To maintain consistency, all quadrats were positioned to the left and above each point on the transect (when facing away from the water). Algal canopy cover (%) which includes seaweeds and one grass was estimated using a 25x25cm quadrat divided into 100 squares or 1%. A square was counted if it contained >=50% canopy cover. If a species was present but <50%, abundance was recorded as 0.5%. Understory species cover (%) which includes algal species, encrusting invertebrates and rocks was estimated using the point intercept method for 20 random points in a 25x25cm quadrat of 100 squares. Since 20 of 100 possible intersections were marked, each point represented 5%. Each point could contain multiple organisms (layers), e.g. Balanus growing on Mytilus. Invertebrates were counted if >=50% of the organism occurred within the quadrat. Quadrat size depended on the density of the organism (e.g. 12.5x12.5cm for Littorina, 25x25cm for Hemigrapsus, 50x50cm for Pisaster). Data was collected by students in the Coastal Biodiversity and Conservation course taught by Dr. Tom Berman with Teaching Assistant Russ Markel July 21-Aug 29, 1997.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2080.095

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 head0.376
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.097 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealis→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→