MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1793718847 · doi:10.1139/z06-156

Using <i>n</i>-alkane markers to estimate forage intake of mule deer

2006· article· en· W1793718847 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Gerald W. Kuzyk, Robert J. Hudson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsOdocoileusAnimal scienceBiologyForageDry matterFecesEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dry matter intake (DMI) of free-ranging mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus (Rafinesque, 1817)) in the aspen parkland of east-central Alberta was estimated using the double n-alkane ratio and bite count methods. Eleven female mule deer were given an intraruminal capsule containing synthetic n-alkanes and released into 4–8 ha paddocks. Known concentration of even-chained carbon (C32) was released from the capsules and recovered 7–10 days later from freshly voided faeces. Odd carbon chains of adjacent length (C31:C33) were extracted from vegetation samples gathered during behavioural observations of four tame deer. Calculations from the pairings (C31:C32; C33:C32) provided estimates of DMI that ranged from 1.29 to 2.73 kg/day. DMI was highest during autumn, possibly to prepare for increased energy demands for the upcoming winter. No differences were found in seasonal or annual comparisons of bite rates, but bite sizes differed in all comparisons, suggesting bite size was a critical factor affecting consumption rates for mule deer on northern ranges. Maximum bite sizes rose from 49 ± 5 mg/bite in July to 213 ± 58 mg/bite in October. Maximum consumption rates were in October of both years (3.6–4.4 g/min) and occasionally approached theoretical maxima (14.3–15.6 g/min).

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→