Survival estimates of free-living arctic ground squirrels (<i>Urocitellus parryii</i>): effects of sex and biologging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hibernation is associated with long lifespan: on average, hibernating mammals live 15% longer than nonhibernators of equivalent mass. We investigated how survival varies with sex, season, and the deployment of biologgers in arctic ground squirrels (Urocitellus parryii (Richardson, 1825)), a widely distributed northern hibernator. The duration of hibernation in arctic ground squirrels differs markedly by sex: females hibernate 30% longer each year than males, a behavioural trait that could positively affect female survival. Additionally, males engage in aggressive territorial and food cache defense in spring and fall, which may decrease survival in this sex. From 13 years of mark–recapture data, we estimated apparent survival of arctic ground squirrels in Arctic Alaska (USA) using Cormack–Jolly–Seber models in program MARK. We found that females had higher annual survival ([Formula: see text] (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.469, 0.913)) than males ([Formula: see text] (95% CI: 0.416, 0.670)), with a maximum observed lifespan (10 years) that exceeded that of males (6 years). We also show that biologger use and implantation did not significantly impact survival. Quantifying basic arctic ground squirrel demographics from this well-studied population illustrates how sex-specific hibernation parameters may influence lifespan differences in male and female arctic ground squirrels and provides support for the safety of biologging devices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".