MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104711555 · doi:10.1139/z2012-084

Estimating the influence of the thermal environment on activity patterns of the desert woodrat (<i>Neotoma lepida</i>) using temperature chronologies

2012· article· en· W2104711555 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ian Murray, Felisa A. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyEcologySouthern HemisphereThermoregulationTortoiseHabitatNorthern HemisphereZoologyAtmospheric sciences

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental temperature influences the ecology and life history of animals. In habitats near the thermal range boundary, fluctuations in temperature may influence the ability of species to persist. Desert woodrats ( Neotoma lepida Thomas, 1893) occupy one of the hottest and most extreme environments in the western hemisphere, Death Valley, California, despite limited adaptations for water conservation or efficient heat dissipation. Moreover, N. lepida have a relatively low tolerance for high temperature. Thus, we hypothesized temperature might influence both the timing and the duration of activity. To test this idea, we attached iButton sensors to 56 animals over a 2-year period and recorded activity. Each sensor was set to record at 5 or 15 min intervals and stored approximately 2000 records before retrieval. We found a strong relationship between ambient temperature and onset and duration of activity, influenced by both body size and gender. Neotoma lepida did not emerge until air temperature fell below 42 °C. As daily high temperatures increased, both sexes had fewer nightly activity bouts of shorter duration. Our results suggest that activity of N. lepida is constrained during the climatically intense summer months. Animals face a trade-off between remaining in the thermal safety of the den vs. emerging to obtain resources.

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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations51
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207