MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176352820 · doi:10.1644/bos-118

EFFECTS OF FOOD AND DEN-SITE SUPPLEMENTATION ON POPULATIONS OF GLAUCOMYS SABRINUS AND TAMIASCIURUS DOUGLASII

2004· article· en· W2176352820 on OpenAlexaffabout
Douglas B. Ransome, Thomas P. Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)BiologyEcologyAbundance (ecology)PopulationZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined effects of food and den site supplementation on population dynamics of Glaucomys sabrinus and Tamiasciurus douglasii in mature second-growth forests in British Columbia, Canada. We tested the hypothesis that populations of these squirrels were limited by abundance of food, not den sites. Populations were sampled intensively from June 1996 to March 1999 on controls and grids supplemented with food, food and nest boxes, and nest boxes. Analysis of variance revealed no differences in movement, abundance, recruitment, body mass of males, and percentage of males breeding among treatments for G. sabrinus or T. douglasii. Survival of G. sabrinus was not significantly different during pretreatment, but was significantly higher on grids supplemented with food during posttreatment. Occupancy rate of nest boxes in stands supplemented with nest boxes and food was 6- to 12-fold higher than in stands supplemented with nest boxes only. G. sabrinus occupied the majority of the nest boxes. We concluded that G. sabrinus used nest boxes readily but their populations were not limited by availability of den sites; availability of food appeared to have a significant effect on their populations. T. douglasii was not limited by availability of food or den sites during our study.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations63
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MammalogySame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207