MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125752512 · doi:10.1002/zoo.20366

Female nile hippopotamus (<i>Hippopotamus amphibius</i>) space use in a naturalistic exhibit

2010· article· en· W2125752512 on OpenAlexaff
Tracy E. Blowers, Jane M. Waterman, Christopher W. Kuhar, Tammie Bettinger

Bibliographic record

VenueZoo Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Central Florida
KeywordsHippopotamusUngulateBiologyZoologyEcologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zoological institutions provide naturalistic exhibits for their animals in order to offer a more appealing look for visitors and give the animal the opportunity to engage in more natural behaviors. Examining space use of the animals in the naturalistic exhibit may aid in the management of these animals and inform future naturalistic exhibit design. The hippopotamus is an amphibious ungulate that spends much of its days in the wild in the water but may be found along the banks of the rivers basking in the sun. Our objective was to determine how captive female hippos utilize their exhibit by examining whether hippos selected for certain areas of a naturalistic exhibit. Scan sample data were collected on a group of nine captive female hippos housed at Disney's Animal Kingdom®. Using ArcView, the data were analyzed to determine distribution of hippos in the exhibit and their utilization of depth categories while in the water. Hippos were found to aggregate in preferred areas of the exhibit, mostly water, and selected most for water depths of 0.6-1.0 m. These results will aid in the understanding of hippopotamus space use and may aid zoological institutions in the design of naturalistic exhibits for hippos.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoo BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207