MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512914483 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2016-0064

Activity of eastern chipmunks (<i>Tamias</i> <i>striatus</i>) during the summer and fall

2016· article· en· W2512914483 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Steffi LaZerte, Donald L. Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsTorporBiologyNocturnalMast (botany)EcologyZoologyThermoregulationMast cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measuring activity of small mammals in the field is challenging because they are often out of view. We used a novel method, based on temperatures of collar radio transmitters, to quantify the proportion of time eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus (L., 1758)) spent active, curled up resting, and torpid during the summer and fall of 2 years in southern Quebec. Time active over the 24 h day was lower in a nonmast (8%) than a mast (26%) year. In the mast year, activity varied strongly from a low of 7% during the summer lull to a high of 35% in the fall. Chipmunks that exploited a feeder had higher activity (33%) than chipmunks that did not (19%). Activity was higher during the day, but some activity occurred at night. Daily activity patterns varied strongly among seasonal periods. There was no evidence of torpor during the summer lull. Torpor started much earlier in the nonmast than in the mast year and occurred more at night than during the day. Overall, our study suggests that activity in this food-storing hibernator is positively influenced by food availability and indicates that thermosensitive radiotelemetry is a promising method for recording continuous 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.

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 score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207