MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patterns of body size and habitat use in a lizard assemblage

2004· article· en· W2541456077 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sarah E. James, Robert T. M’Closkey

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHatchlingLizardHabitatEcologyPredationBiologyWoodlandJuvenile

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

:We quantified differences in the distribution and behaviours of three territorial species of phrynosomatine lizard (Urosaurus ornatus, Uta stansburiana, and Sceloporus undulatus) between two habitats on the elevated mesas of western Colorado. Community lizard density was greater on rock ridges dissecting pinyon-juniper woodland than in the surrounding flat, open areas. The frequency of community-level interactions, or behaviours directed towards another lizard of any species, was also greater in the rock compared to the flatland habitat for S. undulatus. Snout-vent length frequency distributions of all three species differed between habitats, with larger lizards residing in the rock habitat. For each species, the distribution of hatchling lizards between habitats was opposite to that expected based on the distribution of conspecific adult females, with the majority of adult females residing in the rock habitat and the majority of hatchlings in the flatland. Indices of juvenile recruitment (number of hatchlings per adult female) in the flatland habitat approximated average clutch size for U. ornatus and U. stansburiana despite known high rates of juvenile mortality in these species. We suggest that ontogenetic habitat shifts may explain the observed age and size distributions of species between habitats. Hatchlings may disperse from rock to flatland to avoid aggression and predation from adult lizards in the rock habitat and return when they have attained larger body size and thus face reduced predation risk, being presumably more able to compete within social hierarchies.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207