MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7073985577

Intertidal Mangrove Foraminifera From The Central Great Barrier Reef Shelf, Australia: Implications for Sea-Level Reconstruction

2005· article· W7073985577 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania) · 2005
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForaminiferaMangroveIntertidal zoneSubaerialTransectIntertidal ecologyBenthic zoneReefSea level
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary foraminiferal samples and environmental information were collected from three fringing mangrove environments (Sandfly Creek Transect 1 and 2, and Cocoa Creek) in Cleveland Bay, and an estuarine mangrove environment (Saunders Creek) in Halifax Bay, on the central Great Barrier Reef (GBR) coastline, Australia, to elucidate the relationship of the foraminiferal assemblages with the environment. The data support the vertical zonation concept, which suggests that the distribution of foraminifera in the intertidal zone is usually a direct function of elevation, with the duration and frequency of subaerial exposure as the most important factor. An agglutinated foraminiferal assemblage dominated by Miliammina fusca, Trochammina inflata, Ammotium directum and Haplophragmoides sp. exists at the landward edge of the field sites, in a zone between just above Mean Low Water of Neap Tides to Highest Astronomical Tide level (a vertical range of 1.8 m). In addition, a foraminiferal assemblage dominated by Ammonia aoteana is found at all sites, existing between just below Mean Low Water of Neap Tides and Mean High Water of Neap Tides (a vertical range of 0.8 m). These assemblages may be used to reconstruct sea level from fossil cores from the area.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania)Same topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207