MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100632566

AND NOTES ON THE'ICE CAVES'OF THE MARITIME PROVINCES

2007· article· en· W7100632566 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicTardigrade Biology and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaveNova scotiaSinkholeFaunaKarst
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several caves and sinkholes where snow and ice persist well into the summer exist in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. In the past they were sometimes used as a source of ice or for cold storage, and are known locally as 'ice caves ' or 'ice holes'. Although they are not true ice caves in the speleological sense of the term because they do not contain perennial ice, they are very similar. Woodville lce Cave in Hants County, Nova Scotia, described here, is a particularly good example. Invertebrates and bats recorded from such sites are briefly discussed and the possibility of finding psychrophilic fauna in them is suggested. Plusieurs grottes et dolines sont pr6sentes ldr oi la neige et la glace ne disparaissent que tard durant l'616 en Nouvelle-Ecosse t au Nouveau-Brunswick. Autrefois, elles 6taient parfois utilis6es comme sources de glace ou auxfins d'entreposage sous froid. A l '6chel le locale, el les sont connues ous le nom de glacidres ou de puits de neige. El les ne sont pas de v6ri tables glacidres au sens habituel dans le domaine de la sp6l6ologie parce qu'el les ne contiennent pas de glace p6renne, mais el les sont trds semblables. La grotte Woodvil le (Woodvi l le lce Cave)dans le comt6 de Hants (N.-E.) decri te dans le p16sent document, est un trds bon exemple. Nous discutons bridvementdes invert6b16s et des chauves-souris observ6s dans de telles grottes et dolines, et nous sugg6rons qu ' i l est peulCtre possible d'y observer des organismes psychrophiles.

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 score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.176 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTardigrade Biology and EcologyFrench-language works237,207