MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6931575862 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.6707039

Microtus miurus Osgood 1901

2017· article· en· W6931575862 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubspeciesMicrotusVoleHabitatPeromyscusTroglodytesTransectDorsum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

131. Singing Vole Microtus miurus French: Campagnol chanteur / German: Alaska-Wihimaus / Spanish: Topillo fonador Other common names: Alaska Haymouse, Alaska Vole, Toklat Vole Taxonomy. Microtus miurus Osgood, 1901, head of Bear Creek, in mountains near Hope City, Turnagain Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska, USA. Subspecies paneaki is considered here as a synonym of nominotypical miurus. Five subspecies recognized. Subspecies and Distribution. M.m.miurusOsgood,1901—KenaiPeninsula,Alaska,USA. M.m.anderson:Rand,1945—knownonlyfromthetypelocalityinWNorthwestTerritories,Canada. M.m.cantatorR.M.Anderson,1947—WrangellMtsofAlaska,USA,andSWYukon,Canada. M.m.murieiNelson,1931—NAlaska,USA,andmostofYukon,Canada. M. m. oreas Osgood, 1907 — S Alaska, USA. Descriptive notes. Head-body 82-114 mm, tail 19-41 mm, ear 11-13 mm, hindfoot 19-21 mm; weight 22-52 g. Dorsal pelage of the Singing Vole is a mix of buff-tipped to black-tipped guard hairs and varies from pale tawny to pale buffy gray, but it is sometimes pale ocherous. Tail is darker above (dusky) and lighter buffy to ocherous below. Habitat. Tundra and taiga-tundra ecotonal habitats on well-drained ground. Singing Voles are found most often in willows (Salix, Salicaceae) along streams or near or above tree line, with their burrows often associated with rocky outcrops and large boulders that provide structural refuge from predators. Differences in microhabitats and social interactions tend to structure ways that Singing Voles use their environment. If an area has multiple microhabitats that are strongly defined, an individual will show stronger habitat affinity, but if habitats vary less and are more uniform, behavior tends to influence how space is used. Food and Feeding. Singing Voles are well known for communal hay piles of dried grass, shrubs, and forbs aboveground and cached food such as tubers underground for long winters. Caches are made primarily by immature individuals of the age class that is most likely to survive winter. Diet is primarily herbaceous plants and fungi, with noted affinity for feeding on horsetail (Equisetum arvense, Equisetaceae), cottongrass (Eriophorum angustifolium, Cyperaceae), coltsfoot (Petasitesfrigidus, Asteraceae), bearberry (Arctostaphylos rubra, Ericaceae), and willows. Because Singing Voles are highly social and tend to congregate at particularsites, they can have an intense localized impact on vegetation through selective feeding and from nutrients deposited in their feces. Breeding. Breeding occurs in June-August, and litters have 4-12 young. Seasonal patterns of spatial overlap of Singing Voles that are of reproductive age suggest promiscuous mating system and some flexibility in territoriality. Males were shown to be territorial earlier in the breeding season; females tended to be territorial later. Activity patterns. Singing Voles are active day and night and throughout the year. In winter, they are dependent on sites with adequate snow cover to avoid harsh winter conditions. Movements, Home range and Social organization. Home ranges are hypothesized to increase with body size for males and females, with males generally having larger home ranges (average 1250 m* for adult males and 450 m?* for adult females). In a study on the north slope of the Brooks Range, Alaska, population density estimates ranged from a peak of 45 ind/ha to a low of 9 ind/ha, while a different study in the same region reported a range of 50 ind/ha to 5 ind/ ha. Highly social behavior tends to concentrate populations to localized areas and facilitates maintenance of extensive burrow systems under snow. Thought to be semi-colonial, their well-documented singing appears to be a warning signal when predators are nearby. Others have suggested, however, that vocalizations are related to territoriality. Status and Conservation. Classified as Least Concern on The IUCN Red Lust. Bibliography. Batzli & Henttonen (1993), Bee & Hall (1956), Douglass (1984), Hall (1981), MacDonald & Cook (2009), Maguire & Rowe (2017), Murie (1961), Musser & Carleton (2005), Rausch (1950, 1953), Wilson & Ruff (1999), Youngman (1975).

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.006

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 head0.327
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.130 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicEthics in Clinical Research→French-language works237,207→