MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077298841 · doi:10.2298/abs0501035p

Revision of bank vole Clethrionomys glareolus (Schreber, 1780) (Mammalia, Rodentia) distribution in Serbia and Montenegro

2005· article· en· W2077298841 on OpenAlexaff
Momír Paunović, Tatjana Jovanovic, Branko Karapandža, Vesna Habijan-Mikes

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Biological Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBank voleMontenegroGeographyEcologyVoleDistribution (mathematics)WoodlandClethrionomys glareolusBiologyDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present article represents a complete review of all published data (with corrections) on bank vole Clethrionomys glareolus distribution in Serbia and Montenegro. On the other hand, data of 63 unpublished records stored in the period from 1956 to 1983 in the Mammal Study Collection of the Natural History Museum, Belgrade had not been processed until now. In the period from 1992 to 2004, 29 new findings were recorded, 12 of them outside the currently known area of distribution. New data reveal a wider distribution of bank vole than was known until now, completing and partly modifying previous knowledge about this rodent's bionomy and ecology in Serbia and Montenegro. The occurrence of bank vole in the Prokletije Mountains, Kosovo and Metohija represents its highest known altitude in Europe (2500 m). On the basis of these new data and observations, we can conclude that bank vole is continuously present in small and linear fragments of autochthonous woodlands on plains and hills, and that there are no large discontinuities in its distribution in Serbia and Montenegro, as was assumed earlier. In efforts to preserve overall biological diversity, the example of the bank vole underlines the need to intensify protection and management of woodlands especially remaining fragments of forests on plains and in hills.

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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

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 studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Biological SciencesSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207