MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Première étape dans le développement et standardisation des reproductions asexuées et dans l’élevage de quatre espèces de coraux Acropora sp, Montipora sp, Lobophillia sp et Acanthastrea sp en conditions de laboratoire à Longueuil. Indice de sante aquanov et test premier test de l'indice de sante aquanov et la détermination du meilleur système d'éclairage pour deux espèces de coraux.

2018· article· en· W6958577444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcroporaCoralIndex (typography)PoritesReef

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Development of the health index of AQUANOV corals and the first testing of the Index during the determination of the best lighting system for two coral species.With the purpose of developing a methodology to evaluate the health status of corals, the biological visual indicators of corals that may be rapidly evaluated were determined, which could indicate the corals' physiological status. The indicators chosen were: 1. Polyps' expansion; 2. Placement of the coral; 3. Growth band.Each indicator was conferred a value from 1 to 3. The corals' health status was determined by the addition of these three indicators at a determined time. We named this index the "Aquanov Index" (IA). The reference values obtained for health were: from 1-3 poor health, 4-5 regular health, 6-7 regular good, 8-9 good health.In a second stage of this study, 18 mini colonies of 2 species, Acropora sp and Montipora sp, were submitted to three different light sources during 30 days, with the purpose of evaluating their answer. The Aquanov Index (IA) was used as an evaluation tool. The assessed lights were metal halide, neon lights and LED lights. The best results were obtained with metal halide lights, with which the corals obtained an average IA of 8.3 with a standard deviation of+/- 1.2 for Acropora sp and an average value of 8.3 (+/- 0.6) for Montipora sp. The second best results were obtained with neon lights, with which Acropora sp obtained an average IA value of 7.7 (+/- 0.6), and Montipora sp, 7.3 (+/- 0.6). In both cases, the mortality was 0%.On the contrary, LED lights in this initial s􀁗age generated high mortalities, 66% for Acropora sp and 33% for Montipora sp, from the day 15. Therefore, it was decided to cancel the study with these lights.The Aquanov Index was a very helpful tool to evaluate the corals' health status.Further studies with LED lights are required, given that the obtained results were unexpected.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies→French-language works237,207→