MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100095133 · doi:10.1139/z09-138

Intrinsic and extrinsic factors in the dynamics of local small-mammal populations

2010· article· en· W2100095133 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tapio Solonen, Paula Ahola

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBank voleVoleIntraspecific competitionMicrotusClethrionomys glareolusEcologyMammalShrewPopulationRodentZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied dynamics of local small-mammal assemblages consisting of shrews, voles, and mice by small-scale snap trapping in each spring and autumn from 1981 to 2006 in southern Finland. Our aim was to search for relative roles of possible regulatory associations within and between species, as well as to find reflections of the effects of large-scale climatic phenomena on local populations. Preceding intraspecific densities had a dominating role in seasonal changes in small-mammal numbers. Their relationships with weather-related factors indicated by the indices of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) were most pronounced during winter. Relationships with the NAO indices, increasing values of which indicate milder weather in the north, were negative in voles but positive in shrews and mice. Spring densities were governed by the largely compensatory effects of the growth rate of the preceding summer and subsequent population decline during winter in the field vole ( Microtus agrestis (L., 1761)) and mice, while the effects of winter decline dominated in shrews. The bank vole ( Myodes glareolus (Schreber, 1780) = Clethrionomys glareolus (Schreber, 1780)) showed decreasing winter decline, which had a considerable positive effect on population densities.

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 score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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