Bibliographic record
Abstract
50. Rock Shrew Sorex dispar French: Musaraigne a longue queue / German: Langschwanzspitzmaus / Spanish: Musarafna de cola larga Other common names: Long-tailed Shrew; Gaspé Shrew (gaspensis) Taxonomy. Sorex dispar Batchelder, 1911, “ Beede’s [= Keene Heights], Essex county, New York,” USA. Sorex dispar is the only member of the S. dispar group and is in subgenus Otisorex. Sorex dispar has a basal position to the rest of Otisorex. Although S. gaspensis was previously recognized as a distinct species based on morphology, recent studies have found that S. gaspensis represents the northern limit of a cline from south to north within S. dispar and is considered a subspecies of S. dispar here. Genetic data also support this view because there was not clear genetic distinction between S. gaspensis and S. dispar. Subspecies are based primarily on morphology, but they might not be valid genetically. Three subspecies recognized. Subspecies and Distribution. S.d.disparBatchelder,1911—AppalachianMtsfromextremeSEQuebec(Canada)andMaineStoPennsylvania(NEUSA). S.d.blitchiSchwartz,1956—AppalachianMtsfromNWestVirginiaandWMarylandStoETennessee,WNorthCarolina,andNEGeorgia(ECUSA). S. d. gaspensis Anthony & Goodwin, 1924 — Gaspé Peninsula in Quebec, New Brunswick, N Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton I (SE Canada). Descriptive notes. Head—body 48-79 mm, tail 46-67 mm, hindfoot 11-15 mm; weight 2-8 g. The Rock Shrew is small to medium-sized. There is a cline in size from south to north, with individuals in the south being larger than individuals in the north. Dorsum is slate-gray, and venteris slightly paler gray, and northern individuals are slightly lighter. Feet are pale; ears are small and rounded. Tail is long at 80-100% of head— body length, well furred, and indistinctly bicolored, being dark gray above and lighter below. Teeth are skinnier than in other species of Sorex, and incisors are procumbent. Teeth are pigmented dark red. There are five unicuspids,first and second are largest and nearly equal in size, third is slightly larger than fourth and both are smaller than first and second, and fifth is minute. Habitat. Evergreen or deciduous forested mountain habitats in rocky areas and deep crevices between rocks (including artificially made concrete and rock piles). Food and Feeding. Diet of the Rock Shrew generally contains invertebrates such as centipedes, insects (including beetles), and spiders, and some plant material has been found in stomach contents. Centipedes seem to be primary prey. Breeding. Breeding of the Rock Shrew seems to occur from late April until August. About two litters can be produced each year, and litters have 2-6 young. Activity patterns. Despite its long tail and long digits for gripping, the Rock Shrew is subterranean in nature and spends much ofits time traversing through spaces between rocks and within crevices 30-60 cm below the surface. Movements, Home range and Social organization. Rock Shrews are solitary unless breeding or rearing young. Very little is known oftheir habits and population dynamics because they are difficult to capture or observe while moving under rocks and soil rather than aboveground. Status and Conservation. Classified as Least Concern on The IUCN Red List. The Rock Shrew has a very wide distribution and might be more common than what is indicated by trapping efforts. There do not seem to be any major threats affecting the Rock Shrew, but general habitat destruction mightaffect it long term. Bibliography. Conaway & Pfitzer (1952), French & Kirkland (1983), Huggins & Kennedy (1989), Kirkland (1981, 1986), Kirkland & Schmidt (1982), Kirkland & Van Deusen (1979), Laerm et al. (1997), Linzey & Linzey (1973), NatureServe (Whittaker et al.) (2016), Rhymer et al. (2004), Richmond & Grimm (1950), Scott (1987), Starrett (1954), Whitaker & French (1984), Woolaver et al. (1998).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.023 |
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".