MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7030300662

Modeling Habitat of Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia:Unionidae) in the Lower Great Lakes 25 Years after the Dreissena Invasion

2018· article· en· W7030300662 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University (Cleveland State University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrthoptera Research and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionTSG101Articular cartilage damageProteogenomicsFusible alloyGestational period
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Finding remnant populations of species that are of conservation concern can be difficult, particularly in aquatic habitats. Models of ecological niches can aid in the discovery of refuges. Remnant populations of native freshwater mussels (unionids) have been found in Lakes Erie and St Clair. Our goals were to predict undiscovered refuges in Lake Ontario based on habitat analysis from Lake Erie and to conduct surveys to test those predictions. We built a presence-only model on environmental data including attributes of the benthic zone and shoreline where mussels occurred in Lake Erie. We found a link between small- and large-scale variables related to unionid persistence. Bathymetry, fetch, and shoreline geomorphology contributed most to the model. These variables correspond to local-scale environmental factors important for unionid survival, including presence of vegetation and substrate composition, which explained ∼22% of the variance in presence, abundance, and richness. The model predicted that 0.8% of the near-shore area of Lake Ontario should be habitat for unionids. In surveys at 34 locations on the USA shore of Lake Ontario, we found 1800 unionids of 11 species and showed that areasOntario, a result signifying generality of our model for conservation approaches to freshwater mussels.

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)0.002
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 score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University (Cleveland State University)Same topicOrthoptera Research and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207