Foraging behavior and predation success of the sand viper (<i>Cerastes vipera</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Activity levels and foraging success of ectotherms are dependent both on extrinsic factors (e.g., ambient temperature) and intrinsic factors (e.g., hunger level). We focus here on activity and foraging of sand vipers ( Cerastes vipera (L., 1758)) (Squamata: Viperidae) in the northwestern Negev desert of Israel. Viper activity is bounded by a specific thermal range, but within this range, temperature does not affect the distance moved. Movement distances are, however, positively correlated with relative humidity. The capture success of lizards, the main prey of this viper, is strongly related both to movement distances of the snake and to the number of the lizard burrows scanned. Body size and shape have a direct effect on the number of burrows scanned and on the number of lizards captured. The increase in capture success with size is probably due to the consequent increase in the range of prey items the sand viper can subdue or handle. Vipers are larger and have a higher mass to length ratio in one of the three study sites, characterized by higher mean annual rainfall and vegetation cover. Finally, females tend to have a higher mass to length ratio than males, which may provide some space within the female body for reproductive materials such as eggs.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".