MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054233444 · doi:10.1139/z01-169

Killing technique of North American badgers preying on Richardson's ground squirrels

2001· article· en· W2054233444 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Gail R. Michener, Andrew N. Iwaniuk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyTorporPredationBurrowRib cageBadgerGround squirrelAnatomyZoologyThorax (insect anatomy)EcologyThermoregulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carcasses of 13 Richardson's ground squirrels (Spermophilus richardsonii) cached during autumn by North American badgers (Taxidea taxus) in southern Alberta, Canada, were inspected to determine the capture and killing technique. Regardless of prey size (251–651 g) or torpor status (normothermic or torpid), badgers killed ground squirrels with a single grasping bite directed dorsally or laterally to the thorax. The canines and third upper incisors of badgers generally bruised the skin without puncturing it, but caused extensive hematomas on the thoracic musculature and penetrated between the ribs, with associated breakage of ribs and hemorrhaging in the thoracic cavity. Internal organs and bones other than ribs were usually not damaged. Thoracic bites, rather than nape or throat bites, are used by several mustelids, including North American badgers, when capturing small prey (<10% of the predator's mass).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207