Springtime Emergence of Overwintering Toads,<i>Anaxyrus fowleri</i>, in Relation to Environmental Factors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the timing of amphibians' spring emergence following winter dormancy may vary under the influence of climate change, the behavior of the animals should be more directly a response to the weather and/or other immediate stimuli and may be expected to show some population-level consistencies independent of timing. As such, there should be particular conditions of temperature, precipitation, wind, and/or phase of the lunar cycle at the onset of surface activity in a terrestrially hibernating anuran that may quantitatively differ from prior environmental conditions. Based on 24 years of data from a northern population of Fowler's Toads, we found that the springtime emergence of the toads is associated with increased temperature, relatively little rainfall or wind, and a gibbous moon. This remains true whether the toads emerge relatively early or late in spring. However, the toads' need for warmer temperatures to emerge for the first time in the year appears to significantly decrease the longer they have to wait. After emergence, though, the toads' activity during spring is positively associated with air temperature and negatively associated with wind speed, whereas rainfall and the illumination of the moon are not factors. Thus the environmental conditions necessary to evoke springtime emergence may not necessarily be the same as those that enable the animals' subsequent activity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it