MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2528356323 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2016-0097

Adaptations of large marsupials to survival in winter snow cover: locomotion and foraging

2016· article· en· W2528356323 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySnowEcologyForagingSwampMarsupialAlligatorSnow lineTammar wallabyMacropusForageHerbivoreSnow coverGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The small extent of seasonally snow-covered Australian mountains means that there has not been a great selective pressure on the mammalian fauna for adaptations to this environment. Only one large marsupial, the common wombat (Vombatus ursinus (Shaw, 1800)), is widespread above the winter snowline. In the past 20 years, with snow depth and duration declining, the swamp wallaby (Wallabia bicolor (Desmarest, 1804)) has become more common above the winter snowline. The red-necked wallaby (Macropus rufogriseus (Desmarest, 1817)) is common in alpine Tasmania where seasonal snow cover is neither as deep nor as long-lasting as on the mainland, but has only been recorded regularly above the winter snowline in the mainland Snowy Mountains since 2011. This study examines morphological aspects of locomotion of these three herbivorous marsupials in snow. The wombat is the best adapted to snow, with quadrupedal gait and an expanded home range allowing it to locate and feed on the same plant groups as it does at lower elevation. Wallabies are poorly adapted to locomotion in snow, but the browsing swamp wallaby is able to maintain its dietary habit by feeding on exposed shrubs in deep snow, whereas the red-necked wallaby, which depends more on grazing, appears constrained to areas where snow is shallow.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→