MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009228261

Arctic foxes as ecosystem engineers: benefits to vegetation and collared lemmings through nutrient deposition

2015· dissertation· en· W3009228261 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tazarve Gharajehdaghipoor

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVegetation (pathology)ArcticNutrientEcosystemDeposition (geology)Environmental scienceGeographyNutrient cycleEcologyThe arcticPhysical geographyOceanographyBiologyGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I estimated the non-trophic effects of arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) denning activities on soil nutrient dynamics, vegetation production and quality, snow cover thickness, and their primary terrestrial prey, collared lemmings (Dicrostonyx richardsoni), near Churchill, Manitoba in April, June and August 2014. Arctic foxes increased soil inorganic nitrogen and extractable phosphorous concentration on their dens. This increase in soil nutrient levels resulted in greater vegetation quantity (measured as biomass and cover) and quality (measured as nitrogen content) on dens. Increased vegetation cover, specifically Salix sp. and Leymus mollis cover, positively affected snow cover thickness on dens by trapping blowing snow. Increased snow cover thickness made dens attractive nesting sites to collared lemmings (measured as lemming nest counts). In addition, dens with lemming nests had greater snow cover thickness compared to dens without lemming nests. Greater vegetation quantity and quality on dens could also attract lemmings to dens for winter nesting.

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 score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207