MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990261978 · doi:10.1007/s10144-005-0235-y

UV‐B‐induced plant stress as a possible cause of ten‐year hare cycles

2005· article· en· W1990261978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vidar Selås

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulation Ecology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowshoe hareGrouseBiologyHerbivorePopulation cyclePredationEcologyPopulationReproductionReproductive cycleHabitatDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Predation has been assumed to be a necessary factor in the ten‐year population cycle of the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) and Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis). The UV‐B‐induced plant stress hypothesis, in contrast, predicts that hare performance, especially reproduction, is negatively related to sunspot numbers, because production of UV‐B‐protective phenolics in food plants in periods of low sunspot activity, when the ozone layer is thin, increases the availability of amino acids and reduces the amount of phenolics that protect against herbivores. In accordance with the UV‐B‐induced plant stress hypothesis, and despite the absence of predators that have been assumed to be necessary for hare cycles, mountain hare (Lepus timidus) populations in Norway fluctuate in close synchrony with snowshoe hare populations in Alberta and the Yukon, Canada. When adjusting for the phase of the hare cycle, the natality of snowshoe hare in Alberta 1962–1976 was negatively related to sunspot numbers with a time lag of two years. It is concluded that delayed responses to UV‐B‐induced changes in plant chemistry during the sunspot cycle is a possible cause of ten‐year cycles of hares and other herbivores, for example grouse and forest moths.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePopulation EcologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207