MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967079604 · doi:10.5063/aa/russelr.3.2

Sanak Intertidal Community Horizontal Transect Data, Sanak Island, AK, USA, 2004

2006· dataset· en· W6967079604 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUC Santa Barbara · 2006
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransectIntertidal zoneQuadratAbundance (ecology)Intertidal ecologyHabitatBelt transectCommunity structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this biological survey was to document the intertidal community around the various habitats of Sanak Island, Alaska. This work was done in concert with a larger study assessing the terrestrial ecology, paleoenvironment (palynology and vulcanology), anthropology (ethnography), and archaelogical reconstructions of the history and prehistory of the island. Vertical transects were run perpendicular to the coastline to help characterize the zonation of the intertidal communities in different habitat types around the island. Abundance of all macroscopic organisms were quantified in these surveys. The transects were spaced somewhat evenly along the coast, independent of habitat. These transects spanned the intertidal, perpendicular to the shoreline, from Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) at 0 ft to the lower edge of terrestrial biota. Quadrats of ¼ m2 were monitored along the transect, placed every foot vertically. Regularly spaced and more frequent vertical transects were used to obtain higher resolution data on the presence and abundance of organisms within Pauloff Harbor. These transects were sampled at regular 300m intervals along the shore, between the most outer edges of the harbor.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUC Santa BarbaraFrench-language works237,207