Using ultrasound measurements of rump fat to assess nutritional condition of woodland caribou in northern British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body reserves (fat and protein) of cervids are important to the reproductive success of individuals, and therefore may limit productivity of populations. We used a portable ultrasound machine to measure thickness of rump fat for 39 woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) captured in the winters (January–February) of 2003 and 2004. We compared thickness of rump fat between pregnant and non-pregnant individuals in the Besa-Prophet drainage of northern British Columbia, Canada. Thirty-eight of the 39 females captured in British Columbia were adults and 34 of the adult caribou were pregnant (89.5 ± 5.1%, x– ± binomial SE). Pregnant individuals had more rump fat (0.60 ± 0.067 cm) than nonpregnant animals (0.20 ± 0.029 cm). Recognizing that deposition and mobilization of fat vary with age and possibly across the winter season, ultrasonography can be used as a non-invasive technique in the field to assist in estimating body fat of caribou.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".