Spatio‐temporal patterns of mink and muskrat in Canada during a quarter century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Fur‐return data on muskrat ( Ondatra zibethicus ) and mink ( Mustela vison ) from 80 posts of the Hudson’s Bay Company were analysed. From each post we obtained the number of furs bought from trappers during 25 years (1925–49). The ecological information content of the data was assessed using questionnaires sent to each post. We conclude that fur‐return data reflect relative abundance of muskrat and mink, and not primarily information about the trappers. The most‐common temporal pattern of the two species are cycles with a period of 8–9 years, with muskrat cycling 1–2 years ahead of the mink. This pattern, as would be expected in a typical predator–prey relationship, is found throughout the boreal forest region, with the exception of several posts in eastern Canada. In the eastern region, the two species were found to fluctuate in synchrony. The data show broad‐scale synchrony. Peaks (and troughs) are roughly aligned in phase over the entire Canadian boreal forest. In some areas the phase of the cycle is either ahead or behind the average cycle. Peaks (and troughs) of mink and muskrat cycles generally appear first in the Athabasca Basin region (for mink in the Hudson’s Bay region of Manitoba and Ontario) and from this epicentre spread throughout Canada within 2–3 years. Synchrony (i.e. mean correlation) declines with distance; for distances less than 450 km, similarity among populations is higher than the average.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".