MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7095105121

A STUDY OF SELECTED MECHANISMS FOR THE COEXISTENCE OF DIAPTOMUS SPP. IN

2015· article· en· W7095105121 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNicheEcological nichePredationBiological evolution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following mechanisms have been suggested to explain the coexistence of different Diaptomus spccics: vertical segregation, seasonal separation, and size differences. Three species of Diaptomus (D. minutus, D. oregonends, and D. sanguineus, in o,rder of increasing size) occur in Clarke Lake, Ontario. D. mzhutus was vertically separated from D. sanguin-ercs, and there was a distinct size difference between the two. D. minutus and L). oregonensis showed different seasonal maxima and were separated by size diffcrcnces. D. sanguineus and D. oregonensis were scparatcd vertically and had different seasonal maxima. A combi-nation of two mechanisms allows cocxistcnce of each of the three Diuptomus species-pairs in Clarke Lake. INTRODUCTI.ON Most studies of congeneric, coexisting species have been concentrated on differ-ences rather than similarities in the use of a common environment (Hutchinson 1957a). The basis for such an approach has been stated by Hutchinson (1948, p. 239) : “closely allied species living together practically al-ways occupy slightly different niches or, in other words, have different tolerances and optima. ” Mayr (1963) suggests that the evolution of differences in overlapping spccics is likely, and Hutchinson ( 1959) has questioned how many diffcrenccs be-tween two species are necessary to prevent them from occupying the “same niche.” Three mechanisms for the coexistence of

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior→French-language works237,207→