MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064919751 · doi:10.1139/z01-015

Food selection by the white-footed mouse (<i>Peromyscus leucopus</i>) on the basis of energy and protein contents

2001· article· en· W2064919751 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chad E. Lewis, Tim W. Clark, Terry L. Derting

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirectorate for Biological Sciences
KeywordsPeromyscusBiologySelection (genetic algorithm)Animal scienceFood scienceZoologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the combined effects of energy and protein contents on food selection by the white-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus. Our objective was to determine how variation in levels of a food component affected the overall attractiveness of a food to the mice and whether trade-offs are made in selecting dietary protein compared with energy. We conducted food-selection tests in the laboratory and field using foods containing different combinations of energy and protein levels. In the laboratory, P. leucopus were offered a choice between a high-energy and a low-energy food with the protein level held constant and between a high-protein and a low-protein food with the energy level held constant. The field study was set up to offer an encounter with all four combinations of energy and protein simultaneously. We also tested for preferred levels of protein using pairwise food-selection tests in the laboratory. In the laboratory and field tests, P. leucopus selected high-energy foods that were low in protein, but avoided all foods with a high protein content. When given pairwise choices among foods containing 5, 15, 25, or 35% protein, P. leucopus consistently preferred the food with 15% protein. Peromyscus leucopus quickly detected differences in protein and energy levels in foods, selecting specific foods according to metabolic profitability and nutrient needs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations49
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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