MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mammals of Iwokrama Forest

2005· article· en· W2179560474 on OpenAlexaff
Burton K. Lim, Mark D. Engstrom

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtibeusMammalBiologyFrugivoreEcologyBiodiversitySpecies richnessAbundance (ecology)ZoologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of a larger project on biodiversity and conservation in Guyana, we documented 130 species of mammals from Iwokrama Forest. This included 7 marsupials, 4 xenarthrans, 86 bats, 5 primates, 8 carnivores, 1 perissodactyl, 4 artiodactyls, and 15 rodents. As is typical for most Neotropical sites, the 86 species of bats represent over half of the mammal diversity. Standardized collecting methods implemented in the 1997 faunal survey of Iwokrama Forest in central Guyana enabled us also to investigate species diversity and abundance resulting from the inventory of mammals. Four species of fruit-eating bats (Artibeus lituratus, A. obscurus, A. planirostris, and Carollia perspicillata) were the most abundant and accounted for 43% of the 2,097 total captures in mist nets and harp traps during 79 nights of sampling. For nonvolant mammals, terrestrial spiny rats (Proechimys spp.) represented over half (55%) of the 65 captures in primarily live box-style traps. We estimate that our inventory is approximately 70% complete with an additional 57 species of mammals expected to occur in Iwokrama Forest. More specialized field techniques are required to attain a complete inventory of mammals, and long-term monitoring should be established at several sites to study spatial and temporal variation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations44
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of PhiladelphiaSame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207