MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013922790 · doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyaa033

Distribution and diversity of squirrels on university and college campuses of the United States and Canada

2020· article· en· W3013922790 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joy Peplinski, Joel S. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSciurusSciurus carolinensisGeographyHabitatOccupancyGround squirrelEcologyRange (aeronautics)BiologySquirrel monkey

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Squirrels on North American college and university campuses have been the subject of much animated conversation in informal venues, but a systematic assessment of their distribution across this habitat type has not been undertaken until now. We collected reports of squirrel species’ presence and absence from faculty experts at 536 campuses in Canada and the continental United States, and found that squirrels are nearly ubiquitous on campuses (95% had at least one species, and 40% had three or more), but that only a select few species are common campus residents. Foremost among these is the eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis—on 62% of surveyed campuses), followed by the eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), North American red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), and woodchuck (Marmota monax). Eastern gray and fox squirrels partition campuses with one another, both in their shared native/core range and on the West Coast. While these invasive eastern species are present on campuses on the West Coast, notably, contingency analysis did not provide evidence that they are the primary factor discouraging western gray squirrels (Sciurus griseus) from using these habitats. The inventory and analyses presented here can provide a basis for longitudinal studies both within and across campuses and may be productively combined with initiatives that involve students in research.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MammalogySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207