MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169166715 · doi:10.1139/z01-203

The influence of body mass on daily movement patterns and home ranges of the collared lemming (<i>Dicrostonyx groenlandicus</i>)

2002· article· en· W2169166715 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Niels Martin Schmidt, Thomas B. Berg, Thomas Secher Jensen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHome rangeBiologyPredationRange (aeronautics)EcologyHabitatZoologyMatingSexual dimorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the determinants of animals' space use have been addressed in a large number of studies, its intrasexual variability has received only limited attention. By means of radiotelemetry we found body mass to influence home-range size and distance moved by adult collared lemmings (Dicrostonyx groenlandicus) in northeast Greenland. Male body mass was positively correlated with home-range size. Distance moved by both males and females was also correlated with body mass, but with opposite trends: male movement distances increased with body mass, while female movement distances decreased. This may reflect the fact that larger females occupy the most favourable habitats, i.e., the habitats that minimize the need for movement, and thus exposure to predators, without limiting the food supply. The variability in male home range size and distance moved resulted in variability in the number of females accessible to each male. Larger males had access to more females, and hence, body mass was indirectly important for individual mating opportunities. However, increasing access to females was associated with higher costs in terms of mass loss, probably as a consequence of increased energy requirements and exposure to predators.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.189
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207