MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132893449

Exploration of riffle scale influences of biotic and abiotic variables on microbial communities of the hyporheic zone

2003· dissertation· W7132893449 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lucie Sliva

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2003
Typedissertation
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsRiffleHyporheic zoneAbiotic componentSedimentInvertebrateTerminal restriction fragment length polymorphismMicrobial population biologyHydrology (agriculture)Scale (ratio)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) was optimized for use in the comparison of bacterial communities within various depths and subsurface flow regimes (“zones”) of the hyporheic zone at a riffle scale. The parameters that required optimization included DNA extraction, purification and PCR. The final method developed allowed extraction of sufficient quality and quantity of DNA, and successful amplification of all samples collected. The T-RFLP analysis revealed that microbial communities were heterogeneously distributed throughout the riffle, with more similarity occurring among depths than zones. The physicochemical variables that appeared to have influence on bacteria were primarily depth and sediment particles sizes. No interaction between the composition of bacterial and meiofaunal communities was observed. There was, however, a strong interaction between invertebrates and total microbial density. Hyporheic flows on a riffle were also manipulated to determine the influence of vertical flow patterns on hyporheic communities.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics→French-language works237,207→