MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098988464 · doi:10.1644/06-mamm-a-111r1.1

Basal Metabolic Rate of Canidae from Hot Deserts to Cold Arctic Climates

2007· article· en· W2098988464 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Careau, Julie Morand‐Ferron, D. W. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraspecific competitionArcticBasal metabolic rateCold climateEcologyBiologyClimate changeArctic foxGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canids form the most widely distributed family within the order Carnivora, with members present in a multitude of different environments from cold arctic to hot, dry deserts. We reviewed the literature and compared 24 data sets available on the basal metabolic rate (BMR) of 12 canid species, accounting for body mass and climate, to examine inter- and intraspecific variations in mass-adjusted BMR between 2 extreme climates (arctic and hot desert). Using both conventional and phylogenetically independent analysis of covariance, we found that canids from the arctic climate zone had significantly higher mass-adjusted BMR than species from hot deserts. Canids not associated with either arctic or desert climates had an intermediate and more variable mass-adjusted BMR. The climate effect also was significant at the intraspecific level in species for which we had data in 2 different climates. Arctic and desert climates represent contrasting combinations of ambient temperatures and water accessibility that require opposite physiological adaptations in terms of metabolism. The fact that BMR varies within species when individuals are subjected to different climate regimes further suggests that climate is an important determinant of BMR.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations60
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MammalogySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207