MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095433755

Growth and persistence of a recent invader Carcinus maenas in estuaries of the northeastern

2005· article· en· W7095433755 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarcinus maenasCarapaceBayEstuaryBarnacleLarvaCrustaceanDecapoda
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the summer of 1998 a new year class of the invasive European green crab, Carcinus maenas, appeared in Oregon and Washington estuaries as well as in northern California, USA, and on Vancou-ver Island, Canada. This invader was first discovered in San Francisco Bay almost a decade earlier and by 1995 it had spread to northern California. The coast-wide colonization event we studied in 1998 (El Niño cohort) was correlated with unusually strong north flowing coastal currents from September 1997 to April 1998. Larval transport by ocean currents from established populations to the south appeared to be the mechanism for the colonization. Crabs from the 1998-year class grew faster than counterparts from Maine and Europe, averaging 14mm in carapace width in June, and 46mm by September 1998. By the end of their second summer, males ranged from 52 to 80mm in carapace width, and by fall of 2000 some males attained a carapace width of over 90mm. The life span for C. maenas in Oregon, Washington and British Columbia is estimated to be similar as in Europe and Maine: 4–6 years. Even though the initial colonists (98-year class) are dying of senescence, and coastal currents have not been favorable for larval transport from source populations in California, green crabs do persist in Oregon and Washington estuaries. It appears that local reproduction and recruitment in some years is high

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)0.000
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 score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMusic and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207