MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110926496 · doi:10.1159/000510964

Enter the Matrix: Use of Secondary Matrix by Mouse Lemurs

2020· article· en· W3110926496 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFolia Primatologica · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of GuelphBeef Farmers of Ontario
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsLemurGrasslandEcologyBiologyHabitatThreatened speciesMatrix (chemical analysis)TransectPrimateGeographyZoologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Madagascar is home to many threatened and endemic primate species, yet this island has seen dramatic declines in lemur habitat due to forest loss. This forest loss has resulted in an increasingly fragmented forest landscape, with fragments isolated from each other by grasslands (i.e., matrix). The grassland matrix is not entirely homogeneous containing matrix elements such as isolated trees and shrubs and linear features such as drainage lines. Because most lemurs are predominantly arboreal, they may preferentially use matrix elements to facilitate dispersal between fragments for access to mates or reduce feeding competition, allowing gene flow between fragments of habitat. Therefore, it is important to understand to what degree they use the matrix. We investigated matrix use in two mouse lemurs, the grey mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus) and the golden-brown mouse lemur (Microcebus ravelobensis) in a fragmented landscape in northwest Madagascar. We tested the predictions that: (1) lemurs use matrix less often than forest fragments, (2) if they use the matrix, then they will preferentially use matrix elements compared to grassland, and (3) M. murinus will disperse into the matrix further than M. ravelobensis. In 2011, we visually surveyed line transects in four areas containing matrix elements and four adjacent forest fragments during nocturnal walks. In 2017, we set up traplines in four areas of the matrix containing matrix elements, three areas that were grassland, and six traplines in adjacent fragments. We compared the relative abundance of mouse lemurs in matrix transects to fragmented forest transects, and the relative abundance of captured lemurs in matrix elements, grassland, and fragment traplines. We found that encounter rates of mouse lemurs did not significantly differ between the matrix and fragmented forest transects or traplines. Our sample size was too low to determine if the mean distance from the forest was greater for either Microcebus spp. Our study highlights that mouse lemurs do use matrix elements and there may be interspecific differences in use. Further research is needed to confirm species-specific matrix use, why mouse lemurs use matrix, and how much matrix elements facilitate movement for each species in fragmented landscapes.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.276 · 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