MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132864118 · doi:10.1644/05-mamm-a-310r1.1

RED SQUIRRELS (TAMIASCIURUS HUDSONICUS) FEEDING ON SPRUCE BARK BEETLES (DENDROCTONUS RUFIPENNIS): ENERGETIC AND ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

2006· article· en· W2132864118 on OpenAlexafffund
Troy Pretzlaw, Caroline Trudeau, Murray M. Humphries, Jalene M. LaMontagne, Stan Boutin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcGill University
FundersKillam Trusts
KeywordsBark beetleBark (sound)BiologyEcologyDendroctonusForagingLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the novel occurrence of North American red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) feeding on spruce bark beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) larvae, and consider the energetic and ecological implications. Although a bark beetle outbreak was 1st noted at our study site in 1994, significant feeding on them by red squirrels was not observed until 2002, after which there was significant increase in the prevalence of autumn beetle foraging by squirrels into 2003. This increase corresponded with a decrease in spruce seed availability, the squirrels' preferred food source. Spruce bark beetles currently represent an important food source, with 73% of monitored squirrels engaged in beetle feeding in autumn 2003, providing 20% of daily energy requirements. In autumn 2002 and 2003, the density of beetle-infested trees on a squirrel's territory was a significant predictor of whether it fed on beetle larvae but not the proportion of its foraging bouts involving bark beetles. Feeding on larval spruce bark beetles by red squirrels represents a short-term solution to a climate-mediated beetle outbreak that will ultimately reduce local spruce seed production and habitat suitability for red squirrels.

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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MammalogySame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207