MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119170321 · doi:10.1139/z05-144

Northern range boundary dynamics of southern flying squirrels: evidence of an energetic bottleneck

2005· article· en· W2119170321 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Jeff Bowman, Gillian L. Holloway, Jay R. Malcolm, Kevin R. Middel, Paul J. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)TransectPopulationMast (botany)BiologyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We undertook a large-scale survey of the distribution of northern, Glaucomys sabrinus (Shaw, 1801), and southern, Glaucomys volans (L., 1758), flying squirrels in Ontario, Canada. Livetrapping was conducted along a north–south transect spanning about 500 km, from 42.5°N to 47.2°N. During 2002–2004, we conducted 42 971 trap-nights at 26 sites and captured 232 northern and 538 southern flying squirrels. During 2002 and 2003, southern flying squirrels occurred >200 km farther north than we expected. However, the range of this species appeared to contract to the south by about 240 km after the winter of 2004. Weather and food data suggested that cold temperatures during January and February 2004 combined with a failed mast crop in the autumn of 2003 resulted in an energetic bottleneck and subsequent population crash. We speculate that prior to 2004 southern flying squirrels had expanded their geographic range in response to recent climate warming. In particular, the nine winters between 1994 and 2004 were relatively warm. By measuring the range expansion over this warm interval, we were able to estimate a rate of spread of 22 km per year, and a diffusion coefficient of 6.9 × 10 7 m 2 per generation.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

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

Citations88
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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