MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2079171519 · doi:10.1139/z00-031

Influence des conditions climatiques sur le comportement du Lièvre d'Amérique (<i>Lepus americanus</i>) en semi-liberté

2000· article· en· W2079171519 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jérôme Théau, Jean Ferron

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowshoe hareRelative humidityBiologyAtmospheric sciencesWind speedAir temperatureHumidityEcologyAnimal scienceEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyGeographyPredationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) behavior has been analyzed over a1-year period to understand the influence of climatic factors. Six animals were observed with a video camera in a 1350-m2 outdoor enclosure located in a wood stand andequipped with a computerized weather station. Temperature (°C), relative humidity (%), windspeed (km/h), and barometric pressure (hPa) were recorded every 5 min during the entire study period. Every month, 72 h of observation were recorded to correlate those factors with feeding, locomotion, grooming, and resting behavior. Results indicate a marked influence of climatic conditions on hare behavior patterns. All patterns are more frequent when relative humidity is high or increasing. Locomotion and feeding are more common when temperature is low or decreasing, or when barometric pressure is increasing. Wind speed has a negative effect on the frequency of all behavioral patterns. Those effects are discussed in relation to hare biology. It appears that energetic constraints associated with harsh weather conditions have forced the snowshoe hare to adopt a flexible behavioral strategy.

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 score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→