MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6966935600 · doi:10.5061/dryad.w0vt4b8rr

Richardson's Ground Squirrel occurrence in Saskatchewan

2021· dataset· en· W6966935600 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic, Cultural, and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaRoyal Saskatchewan Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround squirrelHabitatVegetation (pathology)GrasslandPredationGround beetleMammal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Richardson’s ground squirrel (Urocitellus richardsonii, Sabine 1822) is a widespread burrowing mammal on the Northern Great Plains. This species is a key prey item for a variety of predators, and its burrows provide important habitat for other wildlife; however, Richardson’s ground squirrel is also considered an economically damaging agricultural pest. Despite the ecological importance of Richardson’s ground squirrels and their status as pests, there are gaps in our knowledge about large-scale habitat associations for this species. In 2011 and 2012, we conducted 1840 road-side surveys in a 130,000-km2 area of southern Saskatchewan, Canada to understand which habitat features are associated with Richardson’s Ground Squirrel occurrence. Ground squirrels were observed during only 8% of the surveys. Probability of ground squirrel occurrence was highest in areas with moderate amounts of grassland (approximately 30%), areas that were developed by humans (>30%), and had a high proportion of clay loam soils, presumably for burrowing. Our study highlights the importance of heterogeneous landscapes and that areas disturbed by humans may provide suitable vegetation structure for ground squirrels. This information can help to identify important habitat for species that rely on Richardson’s ground squirrels and identify areas where they could come into conflict with agriculture.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicLinguistic, Cultural, and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207