MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513460163 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2016-0050

Variable effects of snow conditions across boreal mesocarnivore species

2016· article· en· W2513460163 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Casey B. Pozzanghera, Kelly J. Sivy, M. S. Lindberg, Laura R. Prugh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulpesSnowMartenEcologyBorealHabitatBiologyPredationSnowmeltOccupancyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mesocarnivores are increasingly recognized as key drivers of community dynamics, but the effects of bottom-up and abiotic factors on mesocarnivore populations remain poorly understood. We evaluated the effects of snow conditions, prey abundance, and habitat type on the distribution of five sympatric mesocarnivore species in interior Alaska using repeated snow-track surveys and occupancy modelling. Snow depth and snow compaction were the best predictors of mesocarnivore occupancy, with differential effects across species. Coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823) and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes (L., 1758)) occurred in areas of shallow, compact snow; Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis Kerr, 1792) occurred in areas of shallow, fluffy snow; and wolverines (Gulo gulo (L., 1758)) and marten (Martes americana (Turton, 1806)) occurred in areas of deep, fluffy snow. These findings indicate that altered snow conditions due to climate change may have strong direct effects on the distribution of northern mesocarnivores, with divergent effects across species.

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)0.001
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207