Rumen Papillae Morphology of Mule Deer, <em>Odocoileus hemionus</em>, and White-tailed Deer, <em>Odocoileus virginianus</em>, from East-central Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using hunter-harvested deer in the fall of 2003, we compared ruminal papillae density, length, width, surface enlargement factor (SEF) and reticular cell diameter between sympatric Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and White-tailed Deer (O. virginianus), and between age-gender classes within each species. There was no difference in papillae morphology or reticular cell diameter between Mule Deer and White-tailed does or bucks or between any age-gender comparisons within species. Female Mule Deer fawns had larger reticular cell diameters than White-tailed Deer fawns, and male Mule Deer fawns had higher papillae density and larger reticular cell diameters than male White-tailed Deer fawns. Papillae widths of male White-tailed Deer fawns were greater than those of male Mule Deer fawns. Comparisons of papillae morphology between Mule Deer and White-tailed Deer sampled during late fall suggests adults of these species may respond similarly to forage quality, but species differences may be evident in fawns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".