Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sources of sexually discriminable scent were identified for montane voles, Microtus montanus, and compared with known sources in other species of voles. I tested two different hypotheses. The data support the hypothesis that each vole species has a unique number and pattern of sources of sexually distinct scent. The location, pattern, and number of these sources of scent on the integument may allow individuals to convey particular types of information to conspecifics. The data also support the hypothesis that the greater the number of sources of scent for signaling opposite-sex conspecifics, the greater the number of encounters that individuals within that species have with opposite-sex conspecifics. The montane vole, a semisocial species, has six sources of scent, which is intermediate between the numbers found in the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), an asocial species, and the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster), a social species. The results suggest that the number, pattern, and locations of sexually distinct scents are positively associated with the frequency with which individuals encounter the scent marks of neighboring conspecifics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".