Reproductive rates of wild and captive Vancouver Island marmots (<i>Marmota vancouverensis</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I evaluated reproductive rates of the critically endangered Vancouver Island marmot (Marmota vancouverensis Swarth, 1911) using data from captive and wild populations over the 1980–2004 period. Results were similar to those reported for other alpine-dwelling marmots, including the closely related Marmota caligata (Eschscholtz, 1829) and Marmota olympus (Merriam, 1898). Most females in captivity first bred at age 3 or 4 (Tbreed = 4.3 years, SD = 1.15, n = 9), an age not significantly different from that observed in the wild (Tbreed = 3.6 years, SD = 1.2, n = 16). Numbers of pups weaned per litter were similar in captivity (Npups = 3.0, SD = 1.4, n = 25) and in the wild (Npups = 3.4, SD = 1.1, n = 58). Females were capable of weaning pups in consecutive years (46.4%, n = 13) but often skipped 1 year (39.3%, n = 11) or 2 years (14.3%, n = 4) between litters. Two-year-old females weaned pups infrequently (Pbreed = 0.09, n = 43) and older females were far more likely to breed (Pbreed = 0.40, n = 200); in neither case were significant captive-wild differences found. The oldest breeding female was 10 years old, but sample sizes for marmots older than 8 years were small and maximum breeding age may be underestimated. Between-litter intervals in captivity (Tbetween = 1.4 years, SD = 0.7, n = 11) were significantly shorter than in the wild (Tbetween = 1.9 years, SD = 0.7, n = 17). Sex ratios of weaned pups did not differ from 1:1 in the wild (female/male = 1.04) but were significantly skewed towards males in captivity (female/male = 0.56). I conclude that reproductive performance in Vancouver Island marmots is limited both by body condition and social constraints.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".