Parental care in the captive mandarin vole, <i>Lasiopodomys mandarinus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the social structure of free-living mandarin voles (Lasiopodomys mandarinus), high paternal investment might be expected for this species. This prediction was tested under laboratory conditions. We observed 10 pairs rearing their first litter. All pairs exhibited permanent nest cohabitation. Females never prevented males from entering the natal nest. Males exhibited all the patterns of direct care of young except nursing: huddling over, brooding with kyphosis, grooming, manipulating, and retrieving young. There were no sex differences in total time spent in the nest or in time spent alone. Females spent more time grooming pups than did males. There was no sex difference in nest-building activity. The frequency of bringing food or nest material into the nest, as well as in digging time, was significantly greater for males than for females. In L. mandarinus the biparental rearing system with a high level of direct paternal care and some division of labour between the parents seems to be associated with the subterranean mode of life. This pattern of parental care can be predicted for other specialized fossorial voles.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".