MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315647736 · doi:10.1080/11956860.2023.2165020

Habitat selection and diet of the Asian small-clawed otter in Karlapat Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha, India

2023· article· en· W4315647736 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Himanshu Shekhar Palei, Pratyush P. Mohapatra, Syed Ainul Hussain

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOtterHabitatEcologyBiologyWildlifeGeographyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conservation of habitats and flagship species, such as the Asian small-clawed otter, is one of the most effective ways to conserve aquatic biodiversity. The study was conducted at Karlapat wildlife sanctuary, Odisha, India, and aims to determine the habitat and diet preferences of Asian small-clawed otters. Presence-absence of Asian small-clawed otters and associated habitat variables were recorded along 1-km sections of streams and rivers. We used principal component analysis (PCA) and logistic regression to examine habitat variables influencing otter presence along streams and rivers. Diet analysis of Asian small-clawed otters was conducted to calculate the percent frequency of occurrence and score-bulk estimate of each food item in the study area. We found that the presence of Asian small-clawed otters was related to denser canopy, higher shrub cover, and rocky stretches. A logistic regression model showed that Asian small-clawed otters significantly selected for higher canopy cover. Crabs were found to be the most preferred food item (>80%) in the diet of Asian small-clawed otters. These findings shed light on the regional-scale habitat selection and diet of Asian small-clawed otters and indicate important species-habitat relationships, thus providing valuable information for conservation management and land-use planning.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207