MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133358145

Diet estimation by faeces analysis: sampling optimisation for the European hare

2002· article· en· W2133358145 on OpenAlexaff
Krisztián Katona, Vilmos Altbäcker

Bibliographic record

VenueFolia Zoologica · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsSt. Stephen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelletForageBiologySampling (signal processing)Animal scienceFecesStatisticsMathematicsEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated how the sampling process of microhistological faeces analysis could be optimised for an accurate estimation. Spring diet composition of European hare (Lepus europaeus Pallas, 1778) was determined in a juniper shrubland at Bugac, Hungary. Both inter and intraobserver reliability was high permitting us to separate the components of variance due to the methodological steps in the faeces analysis. Estimates varied depending on the number of independent droppings, pellets/individual, subsamples/pellet and epidermis/subsample. The variance was much higher among than within the independent pellet groups. The cumulative frequency estimate stabilised at around 100 epidermis fragments per pellet. We conclude that the most critical steps of the sampling procedure are the collection of independent droppings and the identification of a sufficient number of epidermis fragments. We propose to collect at least 10 independent droppings, one pellet/individual, and analyse 100 epidermis fragments as an optimum for estimating the relative frequency of forage classes reliably. The importance of the individual variability in the diet should be emphasised.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations31
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFolia ZoologicaSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207