MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156831619 · doi:10.1002/wsb.323

A morphometric model to predict the sex of virginia rails ( <i>Rallus limicola</i> )

2013· article· en· W2156831619 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Auriel M. V. Fournier, Mark C. Sheildcastle, Anthony C Fries, Joseph K. Bump

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsSexingWildlife refugeWildlifeMarshBiologyEcologyZoologyPopulationGeographyWetlandDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Virginia rails ( Rallus limicola ) are secretive marsh birds found in freshwater wetlands across much of North American. There is currently no known way to differentiate between the sexes in the field. We suggest the use of morphometric discriminant analysis as an effective method to separate males and females. We compared the length of the culmen, tarsus, wing chord, and middle toe of live birds captured at Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge (Ottawa Co., OH) during the springs of 2002–2011 and museum specimens measured the summer of 2011. We genetically determined the sex of a subset of samples using an intronic region of the chromo‐helicase‐DNA‐binding gene on the Z and W chromosomes. For live birds, 81% of males and 70% of females were classified correctly; and for museum specimens, 71% of males and 80% of females were classified correctly. This technique provides an accurate and simple method of determining Virginia rail sex that can contribute to efforts to better understand population demographics. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207