Additional indices to estimate fat contents in fisher Martes pennanti populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to develop more practical indices of fat contents in fisher Martes pennanti populations at a large scale, the relationship between individual discernable fat depots (popliteal, sternal, omental, mesenteric and perirenal) and fat percentage (PFAT) was examined in male and female skinned carcasses obtained from trappers in northeastern Ontario from the 1998/99 and 1999/2000 fur harvest seasons. PFAT differed significantly between sex/age classes (F = 10.17, P < 0.0001). In a development group (86 males and 86 females), PFAT was well predicted by each of the five potential fat indices common to both males and females. During the test phase (87 males, 93 females), estimated fat contents (%) based on either fat depot did not differ from observed PFAT neither in males nor in females (0.05 < paired t < 1.33, 0.19 < P < 0.71). All models detected animals with lower fat levels, a useful feature for conservation applications. The accuracy of almost any of the five depots appears adequate to detect changes in fat levels in harvested fisher populations. This contrasts with other mustelids such as martens Martes americana where lower fat levels restrict the availability of discernable fat depots.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".