MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080238291 · doi:10.1139/z03-042

Matching productivity to resource availability in a small predator, the stoat (<i>Mustela erminea</i>)

2003· article· en· W2080238291 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carolyn M. King, Piran C. L. White, Dan Purdey, Barry Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPredationRodentEcologyPredatorReproductionZoologyHoarding (animal behavior)ForagingProductivityBeech

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stoats (Mustela erminea), introduced to New Zealand in the late nineteenth century, are common in New Zealand beech (Nothofagus sp.) forests, where populations of feral house mice (Mus musculus) fluctuate between years much as voles do in the northern hemisphere. We present new field evidence and two models demonstrating (i) a strong correlation between density indices for young stoats in summer and for mice in the previous spring, and (ii) a significant linear relationship between productivity per female and spring density of mice up to 25 mice captures per 100 trap-nights. These models confirm that short-lived small mustelid predators dependent on fluctuating populations of prey have evolved means of matching their productivity to the prospects of success across a wide range, from total failure in rodent crash years to &gt;12 independent young per female in rodent peak years. We suggest that the enhanced reproductive success of female stoats when rodents are abundant is due to a combination of critical improvements in both the reproductive physiology and the foraging behaviour of female stoats in rodent peak years. Conversely, a drastic shortage of rodents increases the mortality of embryos and nestlings, while the adult females are able to survive, and even remain relatively fat, on other foods.

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)0.001
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 score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations28
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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