MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791172601 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v131i3.1823

Northern Snakes Appear Much More Abundant in Old Fields than in Forests

2018· article· en· W2791172601 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Francisco Retamal Diaz, Gabriel Blouin‐Demers

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNature Conservancy of CanadaNature Conservancy
KeywordsEctothermThamnophis sirtalisHabitatThermoregulationEcologyOphidiaLatitudeGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temperature is one of the most important factors regulating habitat selection by ectotherms. Through behavioural thermoregulation, reptiles maintain preferred body temperatures and thereby maximize fitness. At northern latitudes, small colubrids appear to use forest habitat rarely because of thermal constraints. In cool environments, open habitats such as old fields offer more favourable thermal conditions than forest. We studied two northern colubrid snakes, Red-bellied Snake (Storeria occipitomaculata) and Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis), in Gatineau Park, Quebec, Canada, to test the hypothesis that small northern snakes are more abundant in open than in closed habitats because open habitats provide better opportunities for thermoregulation. Snakes were sampled using large arrays of tin and plywood coverboards. Snakes were indeed much more abundant in old fields than in forest, and fields offered more favourable thermal conditions. Most snakes were captured in spring and summer (May to August) when temperatures were highest. Storeria occipitomaculata preferred tin over plywood coverboards. We confirmed an apparent strong preference for open habitats in northern snakes.

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 score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207