MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2150416782 · doi:10.1139/z03-093

Estimating diet composition for mountain hares in newly established native woodland: development and application of plant-wax faecal markers

2003· article· en· W2150416782 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shaila Rao, Glenn R. Iason, Ian A. R. Hulbert, R.W. Mayes, Paul A. Racey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoorlandWoodlandCallunaBiologyHerbivoreEcologyHabitatBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of the feeding ecology of mammalian herbivores is fundamental in predicting their responses to habitat change. Where native woodlands are newly established in open moorland, the extent to which trees form part of the diet of mountain hares (Lepus timidus) is unknown. This information is necessary for predicting the potential effects of mountain hare browsing on woodland establishment. The n-alkanes and a long-chain fatty alcohols found in the cuticular wax of diet plants and faeces (N = 240) were used as markers to estimate the composition of the diet of mountain hares in an area of moorland with newly established Pinus sylvestris and Betula pubescens woodland. During winter, the diet of mountain hares was dominated by Calluna vulgaris, but there was a seasonal shift to a diet dominated by grasses, sedges, and rushes in summer. Pinus sylvestris and B. pubescens were minor dietary components in all seasons. A higher proportion of grasses, sedges, and rushes was found in the diet of lactating females. Results suggest that when an alternative browse species such as C. vulgaris is widely available, mountain hares may not have a large impact on the establishment of native woodland. The dietary results from this study are in broad agreement with those from previous studies using other techniques.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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