Synchrony in lemming and vole populations in the Canadian Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Population fluctuations may occur in synchrony among several rodent species at a given site, and they may occur in synchrony over large geographical areas. We summarize information on synchrony in lemmings and voles from the Canadian Arctic for the past 20 years. The most detailed available information is from the central Canadian Arctic, where snap-trap samples have been taken annually at several sites for periods of up to 15 years. Geographical synchrony in the same species among different sites was strong, especially for the central and eastern Canadian Arctic. Synchrony among different species at a given site was also generally high. When one species is at high density, densities of all species at that site tend to be high. These results do not easily fit the mobile-predator hypothesis proposed to explain regional synchrony, and are more consistent with the weather hypothesis, which we suggest both entrains synchrony among sites and enforces synchrony among species within a site. We tentatively support the weather hypothesis for geographical synchrony in lemmings, and recommend the establishment of a circumpolar program to monitor lemming cycles and predator movements that would advance our understanding of these large-scale patterns of cyclic synchrony.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".