MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2939708465 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v132i3.1947

Spring food habits of Wolverine (<i>Gulo gulo</i>) in the Colville River watershed, Alaska

2019· article· en· W2939708465 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ross R. Dorendorf, Kelly J. Sivy, Martin D. Robards, Kristine L. Pilgrim

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Bureau of Land ManagementWildlife Conservation SocietyMassachusetts Department of Fish and GameAlaska Department of Fish and GameM.J. Murdock Charitable Trust
KeywordsVulpesArctic foxGround squirrelPredationTundraBurrowArcticEcologyRange (aeronautics)Snowshoe hareMustelidaeGeographyBeaverBiologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wolverines (Gulo gulo) are relatively abundant on the North Slope of Alaska, an Arctic ecosystem dominated by tundra habitats that run north from the Brooks Range across a wide coastal plain to the Beaufort Sea. The region contains a range of potential Wolverine prey species, including ungulates (Caribou [Rangifer tarandus], Moose [Alces americanus]), Arctic Ground Squirrel (Urocitellus parryii), and both Soricidae and Cricetidae species. The seasonal composition of these, and other prey species, in the Wolverines’ diet is not well understood. We collected Wolverine scats during spring (March–May) on the North Slope while tracking animals from snowmobiles and with helicopters that visited areas identified as of interest during ground surveys or using global positioning system collared animals. We analyzed prey remains in 48 scat samples based on hair, bone, and other prey fragments. We then calculated frequency of occurrence, percentage of occurrence, and weighted percent volume for each major prey category detected. We confirmed species identity of scats as Wolverine by amplifying the control region of the mitochondrial DNA. We estimated spring diet diversity and richness based on nine major prey categories detected in scats. Ungulates and cricetids together constituted 69% of the Wolverines’ spring diet, with Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus) constituting 9%, fox (Vulpes spp.) 6%, Arctic Ground Squirrel 2%, birds 2%, American Beaver (Castor canadensis) less than 1%, and unknown 6%.

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 score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→