MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389705526 · doi:10.1071/am23043

Estimating age of wild eastern grey kangaroos through molar progression

2023· article· en· W4389705526 on OpenAlexaff
Wendy J. King, Graeme Coulson

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Mammalogy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarsupialBiologyMolarZoologyReproductionCarapaceNational parkAnimal scienceEcologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age is an essential attribute in studies of animal development, survival and reproduction. Here we evaluate the age estimation technique of molar progression devised for kangaroos in 1965. We used 71 wild eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus) that were first captured and aged as pouch young at Wilsons Promontory National Park, Victoria, and subsequently found dead between the ages of 1 and 14 years. We expected that the original equation, derived from captive kangaroos in Queensland, would not estimate age correctly due to differences in diet and/or clinal variation in skull morphology. We found no difference in rate of molar progression between males (n = 44) and females (n = 27). Our overall regression of age on molar index (MI) was log10 (age, days) = 0.284 (MI) + 2.511, r2 = 0.97. The slope of this equation was indistinguishable from that of the original one, meaning that molar progression in the wild was equivalent to that originally developed on captive kangaroos, despite likely differences in diet and morphology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian MammalogySame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207