MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162126203 · doi:10.82308/11978

Spatial scale and the ecological determinants of the distribution and diversity of fishes in Ontario lakes

2008· dissertation· en· W7162126203 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tariq Gardezi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessScale (ratio)Spatial ecologyDistribution (mathematics)Spatial distributionBody size and species richnessSpecies diversityBiodiversityDiversity (politics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data on the occurrence of freshwater fishes in Ontario lakes were used to evaluate the scale of the processes that are primarily responsible for shaping their distributions and patterns of diversity. In Chapter 2 it is shown that, regardless of the scale of analysis, the most important factors structuring their distributions are climatic measures of energy, suggesting that species tend to be able to survive heterogeneous conditions falling within large areas encompassing their climatic affinities. In Chapter 3 it is shown that the relationship between species richness and energy (annual potential evapotranspiration) changes according to the scale on which it is measured. The species-energy relationship is weak at the local scale and stronger and steeper at increasing regional scales. This scale dependence is due to the ability of high energy regions to accommodate relatively large numbers of rare or infrequent species, and reflects the regional scale at which species respond to environmental gradients, particularly those related to energy. In Chapter 4 the relationship between local and regional species richness is examined. It is found that mean richness of lakes is linearly related to the species richness of the watersheds in which they reside. Together, the results point to the importance of processes that are regional in scale for shaping species' distributions and patterns of diversity.

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 score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAquatic Ecosystems and BiodiversityFrench-language works237,207