MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127615456 · doi:10.1093/icb/44.2.186

Interannual Variation in Timing of Parturition and Growth of Collared Pikas (Ochotona collaris) in the Southwest Yukon

2004· article· en· W2127615456 on OpenAlexafffundabout
RENEE J. FRANKEN

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative and Comparative Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSnowmeltGompertz functionBiologySnowEcologyReproductionLatitudePopulationSeasonalityAnimal scienceGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The length of the snow-free season has a significant influence on reproduction and growth in northern alpine environments, and these life history traits may provide sensitive indicators of the responses of organisms to climate change. We examined growth rates and timing of parturition of collared pikas (Ochotona collaris) from 1995-2002 in the Ruby Range, Yukon Territory, Canada. Growth rates were best described using a Gompertz model, in which the asymptotic mass, determined from the average male and female weights, was 157 g, the growth rate constant (K) was 0.0557, and the age at inflection (I) was 18.12 days, for a birth weight of 10 g. The maximum growth rate for North American pikas (O. collaris and O. princeps) increased with latitude, with maximum growth rates being approximately one-third greater in northern populations where the snow-free season is less than three months long. The mean parturition date varied significantly among years from 3 June to 3 July, and delayed parturition was correlated with indices of high snow accumulation and, to a lesser extent, late spring snowmelt. However, parturition date did not significantly affect the subsequent over-winter survival of juveniles in this population, suggesting that pikas are able to adjust to seasonal uncertainty associated with highly variable spring conditions.

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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations19
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative and Comparative BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207