SPRING-TO-FALL MASS GAIN IN A NORTHERN POPULATION OF NORTH AMERICAN PORCUPINES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammalian herbivores from northern environments often store fat in summer to decrease the energetic stress of winter. We measured mass gain during the spring-to-fall season in a Quebec population of North American porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum) and determined how it is affected by the age, sex, and reproductive status of individuals. Porcupines gained mass without interruption from midspring to late summer, but mass gains were more important in mid- to late spring and late summer than at other times. This likely reflected local variations in the nutrient content of forage. Adult males lost mass during the rutting period of early fall. All age–sex classes except lactating females gained about 3 kg, or 40% of their spring body mass. This is not markedly different from mass gains observed in other nonhibernating mammalian herbivores. We generate the hypothesis that in this population some ecological, behavioral, or physiological mechanism limits the rate of mass increase to about 21 g per day.
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 | 0.000 | 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".