MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058023368 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0308674101

Snow conditions may create an invisible barrier for lynx

2004· article· en· W2058023368 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nils Chr. Stenseth, Amir Shabbar, Kung‐Sik Chan, Stan Boutin, Eli Knispel Rueness, Dorothée Ehrich, James W. Hurrell, Ole Christian Lingjærde, Kjetill S. Jakobsen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowSnowshoe hareEcologyAbundance (ecology)PopulationScale (ratio)PredationGeographyPhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyMeteorologyCartographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dynamics of Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis) abundance are geographically structured according to the influence of large-scale climatic regimes. Here we demonstrate that this structuring matches zones of differential snow conditions, in particular surface hardness, as determined by the frequency of winter warm spells. Through a modified functional response curve, we show that various features of the snow may influence lynx interaction with its main prey species, the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus). This study highlights the importance of snow, and exemplifies how large-scale climatic fluctuations can mechanistically influence population biological patterns.

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)0.001
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations87
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207