MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7134364293

Variability in broods of the seastar <i>Leptasterias aequalis</i>

2004· article· W7134364293 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William Jaeckle, Brian L. Bingham, Kehualani Giles

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - IWU (Illinois Wesleyan University) · 2004
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine Biology and Environmental Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroodPopulationInvertebrateReproductionReproductive valueMarine invertebratesReproductive success
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enormous variation exists in the reproductive output of marine invertebrates (e.g., in the numbers of em¬bryos produced, the volumes of embryos, and the energy that they contain). It is not clear why there is such great variability or what the population-level consequences are. We sampled a population of the brooding seastar Leptasterias aequalis (Stimpson, 1862) to collect basic information on brood sizes, embryo volume, and embryo energy content with a goal to better understand the reproductive ecology of this species. We collected brooding females in February and again in April. We measured the size of their broods and sampled the broods to estimate volume and energy con¬tent of the embryos. There was great variability in the volume and energy content of embryos produced by individual females and among the embryos in a single female's brood. Larger adults produced larger embryos, which generally had greater energy content and may be of a higher quality. The average energy content of embryos appeared to in¬crease during the brooding period. Larger females produced larger broods but lost a greater proportion of the embryos. The net result is that larger individuals may not produce any more juveniles than smaller individuals, but those that they do produce may be of a higher quality. Originally published in Canadian Journal of Zoologyand used with permission.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.156 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - IWU (Illinois Wesleyan University)Same topicMarine Biology and Environmental ChemistryFrench-language works237,207