MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465034601 · doi:10.1017/pab.2016.14

Body-size trends in <i>Peromyscus</i> (Rodentia: Cricetidae) on Vancouver Island, Canada, with comments on relictual gigantism

2016· article· en· W2465034601 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martina L. Steffen

Bibliographic record

VenuePaleobiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsRoyal British Columbia Museum
FundersUniversity of California, Irvine
KeywordsPeromyscusCricetidaeCaveGigantismPleistocenePaleontologyMammalFaunaUrsusDeer mouseEcologyGeologyHoloceneZoologyArchaeologyGeographyBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Large body size in Keen’s mouse, Peromyscus keeni , has been regarded as a relictual character that developed in times of geographic separation from P. maniculatus . However, body-size changes in Keen’s mouse have not been studied in detail. To address this problem the present paper compares the size of ancient and modern Peromyscus specimens from Vancouver Island. Results indicate that Late Pleistocene Peromyscus from Arch-2 Cave and early Holocene Peromyscus from Pellucidar Cave are significantly larger than those of modern P. maniculatus and P. keeni . Morphology and linear discriminant analyses support tentative assignment of several ancient specimens to P. keeni . Radiocarbon age estimates of 11,960±45 BP (14,004–13,637 cal BP) on a small mammal bone and 12,370±35 BP (14,695–14,148 cal BP) on Ursus arctos from Arch-2 Cave place these faunas on the island as relative sea level fell from a postglacial highstand, suggesting a local source for faunas with limited over-water dispersal capacities. Results of this study are consistent with insular relictual gigantism in Keen’s mouse, although some modification of the original hypothesis is needed to explain the smaller size of modern than ancient mice.

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 score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaleobiologySame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207