MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DIETARY PREFERENCES IN EXTANT AFRICAN BOVIDAE

2000· article· en· W2178663183 on OpenAlex
Mario Gagnon, Amy E. Chew

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersConnaught Fund
KeywordsFrugivoreBovidaeBiologyExtant taxonGeneralist and specialist speciesObligateEcologyZoologyHabitatEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a synthesis of diet information for all 78 species of extant African Bovidae (excluding goats and sheep), based on an extensive survey of the literature. We compiled data on food types (percentages of fruits, dicotelydons, and monocotyledons), seasonal and geographic variability, and body mass. Information reported in the literature was evaluated critically to assess its reliability. We performed cluster analyses to identify 6 discrete dietary strategies: frugivores, browsers, generalists, browser–grazer intermediates, variable grazers, and obligate grazers. We identified a positive correlation between an increase in the proportion of monocots in the diet and body mass, and a negative correlation between increases in proportions of dicots and fruits and body mass. We found some degree of correspondence between taxonomic groupings and dietary strategies. Species in the tribes Alcelaphini, Hippotragini, and Reduncini have high proportions of monocots in their diets. Cephalophini, with the exception of Sylvicapra, are frugivores. Tragelaphini and Neotragini, with the exception of Ourebia, have diets that include high proportions of dicots.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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)0.0110.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.205 · 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