MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162132215 · doi:10.1139/as-2021-0006

Using subnivean camera traps to study Arctic small mammal community dynamics during winter

2021· article· en· W3162132215 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonas P. Mölle, Eivind Flittie Kleiven, Rolf A. Ims, Eeva M. Soininen

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsTundraArcticMicrotusOccupancyEcologySnowShrewCamera trapEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyWildlife

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small rodents are a key indicator to understand the effect of rapidly changing winter climate on Arctic tundra ecosystems. However, monitoring rodent populations through the long Arctic winter by means of conventional traps has, until now, been hampered by snow cover and harsh ambient conditions. Here, we conduct the first extensive assessment of the utility of a newly developed camera trap to study the winter dynamics of small mammals in the Low Arctic tundra of northern Norway. Forty functional cameras were motion-triggered 20 172 times between September 2014 and July 2015, mainly by grey-sided voles (Myodes rufocanus (Sundevall, 1846)), tundra voles (Microtus oeconomus (Pallas, 1776)), Norwegian lemmings (Lemmus lemmus (Linnaeus, 1758)) and shrews (Sorex spp.). These data proved to be suitable for dynamical modelling of species-specific site occupancy rates. The occupancy rates of all recorded species declined sharply and synchronously at the onset of the winter. This decline happened concurrently with changes in the ambient conditions recorded by time-lapse images of snow and water. Our study demonstrates the potential of subnivean camera traps for elucidating novel aspects of year-round dynamics of Arctic small mammal communities.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic ScienceSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207