MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240006520 · doi:10.1139/z99-170

Seasonal variability in brown tree snake (<i>Boiga irregularis</i>) response to lures

2000· article· en· W4240006520 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John A. Shivik, William G. Wright, Larry Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersColorado State UniversityNational Wildlife Research CenterU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsBiologyCarrionOdorZoologyOphidiaAttractionSeasonalityEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In continuing investigations of brown tree snake, Boiga irregularis, attraction to carrion odor, we hypothesized that the attractiveness of live or dead and visually apparent or concealed lures varies seasonally. We determined that lure condition (live or dead mouse lures) and sensory cues (visually apparent or concealed lure) interact among wet and dry seasons. Concealed carrion lures were more effective during the dry season than the wet season, but the effectiveness of live mouse lures showed less seasonal variability. We identified weather variables that covary with observed seasonal trends in capture rates and investigated the influence of recent feeding on snake response to lures. Data suggest that live mouse lure capture rates correlate with wind and dead mouse capture rates correlate with rainfall. Recently fed and satiated snakes were not less responsive to lures but were less active than unfed snakes. Snakes held for over 2 years were less responsive than recently captured snakes. More intensive studies will be required to determine cause-and-effect relationships between lure type, seasonality, and snake behavior.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations14
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207