Cost of foraging in the subterranean rodent<i>Ctenomys talarum</i>: effect of soil hardness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subterranean burrows provide inhabitants with shelter, a relatively stable thermal environment, and potentially access to food resources. However, one cost of living in such burrows is the energetically expensive mode of locomotion. Soil hardness and the physiological capabilities of animals are likely important factors that affect the cost of burrow construction, and hence, distribution of burrows. We assessed the effect of soil hardness on the cost of digging by captive individual Ctenomys talarum Thomas, 1898 in soft soils. Digging metabolic rate (DMR) was higher in harder soil than in softer soil (408.30 ± 51.35 mL O 2 ·h –1 vs. 267.59 ± 20.97 mL O 2 ·h –1 , respectively). In C. talarum, a higher soil hardness augments DMR by increasing, in terms of the cost of burrowing model, the costs of shearing and of pushing the removed soil. Additionally, these costs differ between C. talarum and other subterranean species (e.g., Thomomys bottae (Eydoux and Gervais, 1836)), depending on soil hardness and digging mode. Thus, the relationship between digging cost and soil hardness appears to be one of the most important factors that affect burrowing efficiency in subterranean rodents.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".