MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2150143148 · doi:10.1139/z08-016

Early survival of Punjab urial

2008· article· en· W2150143148 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ghulam Ali Awan, Marco Festa‐Bianchet, Jean‐Michel Gaillard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsBiologyLitterOvis canadensisDemographyOvisSurvival ratePopulationSurvivorship curveSurvival analysisBovidaeAnimal scienceEcologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is almost no information on age-specific survival of Asiatic ungulates based on mark–recapture studies. Survival of marked Punjab urial ( Ovis vignei punjabiensis Lydekker, 1913) aged 0–2 years was studied in the Salt Range, Pakistan, in 2001–2005. Male lambs were heavier than females at birth. The relationship between litter size and birth mass varied among years, with a tendency for twins to be lighter than singletons. Birth mass had a positive but nonsignificant relation with survival to 1 year. Neither sex nor litter size affected survival to 1 year, which averaged 55% (95% CI = 41%–68%). There was no sex effect on survival of yearlings, which averaged 88% (95% CI = 4%–100%). Although survival of lambs and yearlings was similar to that reported for other ungulates, apparent survival of 2- and 3-year-olds was very low at only 47%, possibly because of emigration. Early survival in this protected area is adequate to allow population growth, but more data are required on adult survival.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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