Woodcutting behavior in beavers (Castoridae, Rodentia): estimating ecological performance in a modern and a fossil taxon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An early Pliocene fossil locality in the Canadian High Arctic preserves the remains of the extinct beaver Dipoides sp. (Castoridae, Rodentia) in association with an assemblage of fossil beaver-cut wood. The wood assemblage presents a first opportunity to investigate woodcutting behavior and ecological performance in an extinct castorid genus. This study compares woodcutting in Dipoides sp. with that of the modern beaver, Castor canadensis , using evidence from small-diameter cut sticks (i.e., sticks transected by parallel series of cut marks) in combination with behavioral observations of Castor woodcutting. During woodcutting both Castor and Dipoides used their incisors unilaterally; the upper incisor was pressed against the stick while the corresponding lower incisor cut. Cut marks were relatively larger for Castor than Dipoides (scaled to incisor size). Compared with Dipoides, Castor more frequently used a cutting strategy that minimized the number of cuts needed to transect a stick (e.g., clipping as opposed to chip removal). Taken together, the behavioral evidence suggests that ecological cutting performance was lower for Dipoides than Castor.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".