MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2138263672 · doi:10.1139/z02-092

L'enneigement hivernal : un facteur de variation du recrutement chez l'isard (<i>Rupicapra pyrenaica pyrenaica</i>)

2002· article· en· W2138263672 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anne Loison

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyTransectSnowPopulationNational parkJuvenileEcologyDemographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assess the relationships between winter climatic conditions and population dynamics of mountain ungulates, we monitored over the long term an unhunted isard (Rupicapra pyrenaica pyrenaica) population living in the Pyrénées National Park. We used general linear modelling to assess (i) the influence of the observation date (between November and April) of the transect sampled and of the year on population recruitment (proportion of females 2 years of age and older with kids at heel) and (ii) the impact of snow accumulation during winter (cumulated snow fall from November to April) on kid mortality. As expected, the mean number of kids per female decreased over the observation period. The mean number of kids per female showed marked among-year differences in initial recruitment (measured on 31 October) as well as in kid mortality (measured as the decrease in recruitment between 31 October and 31 March). This model accounted for 80% of the variability observed in the field data. Among-year differences in snow accumulation accounted for most (86%) of the yearly variation observed in kid mortality. Our study demonstrates that winter snow may severely affect juvenile survival, and thereby population dynamics of mountain ungulates.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→