MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1486787749 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v127i2.1443

Relative abundance of the Prairie Long-tailed Weasel (<em>Mustela frenata longicauda</em>) in southwestern Alberta

2013· article· en· W1486787749 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Garry E. Hornbeck, Dan Soprovich

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsWeaselPeromyscusShrewAbundance (ecology)MicrotusEcologyBiologyRelative species abundanceDeer mousePredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prairie Long-tailed Weasels (Mustela frenata longicauda) were live-trapped during fall 2005, 2006, and 2007 at Pine Coulee Reservoir and during fall 2005, 2008, and 2010 at Twin Valley Reservoir in southwestern Alberta. Our objective was to estimate the relative abundance of the Long-tailed Weasel and to estimate the relative abundance of small mammal prey. Body size and capture rates are reported for Long-tailed Weasels, and we report capture rates of small mammals. Annual capture rates for Long-tailed Weasels at Pine Coulee Reservoir were 0.44, 0.41, and 0.50 individuals per 100 corrected trap-nights (0.42, 0.38, and 0.48 individuals/100 trap-nights) in 2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively. No Long-tailed Weasels were captured at Twin Valley Reservoir. The probability of capturing zero Long-tailed Weasels at Twin Valley Reservoir was very low, assuming a true capture probability equivalent to that observed at Pine Coulee Reservoir. Deer Mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) were the most abundant small mammals captured in both project areas. Few shrews (Sorex spp.) and voles (Microtus spp.) were captured in either area.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→