MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W178065487 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v126i1.1291

Implantation and Parturition Dates of North American River Otters, <em>Lontra canadensis</em>, in Southern Missouri

2012· article· en· W178065487 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nathan Roberts, Shawn M. Crimmins, David A. Hamilton, Elsa Gallagher

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Missouri
KeywordsBiologyPopulationLatitudeOtterReproductionGeographyphotoperiodismFisheryAnimal scienceEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite numerous studies of reproductive dynamics of the North American River Otter (Lontra canadensis), relatively little information exists on the implantation or parturition dates of North American River Otters in the wild. We collected carcasses of North American River Otters that had been legally harvested in southern Missouri, USA, between 1997 and 1999 as part of a larger population dynamics study. Embryos (n = 28) were removed from a subset of North American River Otters (n = 9) during necropsy. Using harvest dates and crown–rump length measurements of embryos, we estimated implantation dates, which ranged from 7 December to 12 January, and parturition dates, which ranged from 8 February to 15 March (assuming an implantation time of 63 days). Our results are similar to other studies that have reported parturition dates ranging from mid-January to early May in more extreme latitudes. Our results suggest that variation in implantation and parturition dates among populations are likely related to factors affected by latitude such as photoperiod and winter weather severity.

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 score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
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 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207