MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994730286 · doi:10.1139/as-2018-0017

Muskrat distributions in a changing Arctic delta are explained by patch composition and configuration

2019· article· en· W2994730286 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Chanda Kalene Turner, Trevor C. Lantz, Jason T. Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and biodiversity studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeltaArcticBiomass (ecology)MacrophyteForageEcologyHabitatEnvironmental scienceClimate changeComposition (language)Flooding (psychology)Disturbance (geology)Physical geographyGeographyGeologyBiologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change is altering Canada’s western Arctic, including hydrology in the heterogeneous environment of the Mackenzie Delta, and these changes are impacting biotic communities. Muskrats are culturally important semi-aquatic rodents whose populations may respond to changing water levels in this region. We investigated the importance of patch configuration and patch composition — two properties affected by climate change — on muskrat presence and distribution in the Mackenzie Delta, using remote sensing and field-based surveys of lakes with and without muskrats. We tested multiple hypotheses about predictors of muskrat and forage biomass presence using a model-selection approach. We found that configuration and patch composition explained muskrat distribution in the Mackenzie Delta, with composition being of greater importance. Muskrats were more likely to occur in lakes with longer perimeters, higher amounts of forage biomass, and sediment characteristics that supported macrophyte growth. The latter two conditions are related to spring flooding regimes, which will likely be altered by climate change. This may result in a decrease in muskrat habitat in the Mackenzie Delta. Our research indicates that both patch composition and configuration are important for understanding species distributions in heterogeneous environments.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
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 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic ScienceSame topicEcology and biodiversity studiesFrench-language works237,207