MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142616400 · doi:10.1139/z01-073

Evaluating body condition in small mammals

2001· article· en· W2142616400 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Albrecht I. Schulte‐Hostedde, John S. Millar, Graham J. Hickling

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPeromyscusMicrotusBiologyRodentIsotope dilutionAnimal scienceEcologyZoologyDeer mouseWater contentChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body condition (energy reserves) can have important fitness consequences. Measuring condition of live animals is typically done by regressing body mass on measures of body size and using the residuals as an index of condition. The validity of this condition index was evaluated by determining whether it reflected measured fat content of five species of small mammals (yellow-pine chipmunks (Tamias amoenus Allen), bushy-tailed wood rats (Neotoma cinerea Ord), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus Ord), red-backed voles (Clethrionomys gapperi Vigors), and meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus Ord)). We also determined whether body water could predict fat content, enabling the use of hydrogen-isotope dilution for estimating condition. For all five species, condition estimates weakly predicted fat content and more accurately predicted variation in lean dry mass and water content. The relationship between body water and fat content was inconsistent among the five species, discouraging against the general use of isotope dilution in these animals. Although ecologically important, these indices are best interpreted as explaining variation in all constituents of body composition.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations225
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207