Thermal ecology of Massasauga Rattlesnakes (<i>Sistrurus catenatus</i>) near their northern range limit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using populations at their northern range limits, we compared the thermoregulatory behaviour of Massasauga Rattlesnakes ( Sistrurus catenatus (Rafinesque, 1818)) to published results for Ratsnakes ( Elaphe obsoleta (Say in James, 1823)) and Northern Watersnakes ( Nerodia sipedon (L., 1758)) to test the hypothesis that given similar benefits of thermoregulation, costs associated with foraging ecology should shape thermoregulatory behaviour. More than 32 000 body temperature measurements from 34 individual snakes over 4 years were used to quantify thermoregulation by Massasauga Rattlesnakes using standard indices and a new index (%MaxE) that describes how much of the thermoregulatory potential available to a snake is realized. On average, Massasaugas were much cooler (db = 6.9 °C) than their preferred body temperature range (30–33.6 °C) but warmer (de – db = 3.3 °C) than were they not thermoregulating. Massasaugas realized more than half of their environmental potential for effective thermoregulation (%MaxE = 64%). Consistent with there being less conflict between foraging and thermoregulation for ambush predators than active foragers, Massasaugas were more effective thermoregulators than Ratsnakes or Watersnakes during the day. All three species were effective thermoregulators at night, supporting the assumption that species in a cool environment will thermoregulate when there are few competing interests.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".