MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Linking ‘10‐year’ herbivore cycles to the lunisolar oscillation: the cosmic ray hypothesis

2013· article· en· W1980012370 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vidar Selås

Bibliographic record

VenueOikos · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCosmic rayHerbivorePopulation cyclePopulationSolsticeSnowshoe hareLarchPhysicsEcologyAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceAstronomyAstrophysicsBiologyPredationLatitude

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mean population cycle periods of the snowshoe hare Lepus americanus , the larch budmoth Zeiraphera diniana , and the autumnal moth Epirrita autumnata are 9.3 years, similar to the lunar nodal phase cycle. When the full/new Moon is situated close to the ecliptic plane at solstice, it interacts more strongly with the magnetosphere, which plays a crucial role in protecting the Earth against ionizing cosmic ray particles. Ionization by cosmic rays induces protein mobilization in plants, which may increase forage quality for herbivores. Series of hare/lynx population indices from Canadian provinces and an autumnal moth series from Fennoscandia correlated with the lunar nodal phase cycle with different time lags. Both the time lag and the impact of an active sun, which increases solar energetic particles, but decreases galactic cosmic ray particles, were related to radiation or the distance from the auroral oval. These insights improve our ability to explain and understand population peaks, and should also motivate further studies on the effects of cosmic rays on plant chemistry and herbivore performance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOikosSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207