MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W986250428

The Hydromedusae and its distribution in Chukchi Sea and adjacent southern edge waters of Canada Basin, Arctic Ocean

2001· article· en· W986250428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jinbiao Zhang, Lin Mao

Bibliographic record

VenueADVANCES IN POLAR SCIENCE · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticOceanographyCanada BasinPelagic zoneFaunaBorealGeographyFisheryEcologyGeologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper is based on materials collected in Chukchi Sea and adjacent southern edge waters of Canada Basin, Arctic Ocean during the period from July to August 1999 on the icebreaker, the R/V Xuelong, by the Chinese First Arctic Scientific Expedition. Totally, 8 species of pelagic Hydromedusae were identified, of which 4 species belonged to Anthomedusae, 2 species to Leptomedusae, 1 species to Trachymedusae and 1 species to Narcomedusae, the Neoturris breviconis is recorded for the first time in Chukchi Sea. Their principal morphological characteristics are described and illustrated. The 8 species of Hydromedusae occurring in the Chukchi Sea were all cold water species, of which 6 species belong to neritic species and 2 species to ocean species. According to the geographic distribution of species, they may be divided into three groups: Arctic species, Arctic-boreal species and Boreal-temperate species. From the view-point of zoogeography, species from these waters belong to the Arctic fauna.The abundance of Hydromedusae in Chukchi Sea was generally low, with a mean value of 108 ind.·10 -2 ·m -3 . Rathkea octopunctata and Aglantha digitale were dominant species. From the view-point of vertical distribution Aglantha digitale is inhabiting in the depth of 0-300 m and with the maximum in the depth of 50 m to 100 m.

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 score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueADVANCES IN POLAR SCIENCESame topicCephalopods and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207