MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6969336519 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.6869650

Sorex merriami Dobson 1890

2018· article· en· W6969336519 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorexShrewAraneusHabitatOrnithology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

35. Merriam’s Shrew Sorex merriami French: Musaraigne de Merriam / German: Merriam-Spitzmaus / Spanish: Musarana de Merriam Taxonomy. Sorex merriami Dobson, 1890, “ Fort Custer [=Hardin, Big Horn Co.], Montana.” Sorex merriami is included in the merriami group in an unnamed subgenus of Sorex along with S. arizonae. Fossils of S. merriami have been recorded from Moonshiner and Middle Butte caves in south-eastern Idaho with remains of S. monticolus, S. nanus, and S. haydeni. Monotypic. Distribution. Extreme SW Canada (extreme S British Columbia) and W USA (E Washington, E Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, SW North Dakota, W South Dakota, W Nebraska, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico). Descriptive notes. Head-body 48-69 mm, tail 30-42 mm, ear 7 mm, hindfoot 11-14 mm; weight 3-7 g. Merriam’s Shrew is small, externally similar to the Arizona Shrew (S. arizonae) although it is slightly smaller. Dorsum is pale gray-brown, and venter is whitish. Feet are whitish; ears are small and rounded but relatively conspicuous. Tail is ¢.60% of head-body length and indistinctly bicolored, being pale brown above and whitish below. There are five unicuspids, third is greater than or equal to the size of the fourth, and there is dark red pigmentation on tips of some teeth. Unlike the Arizona Shrew, Merriam’s Shrew does not have interdenticular spaces or tines. Habitat. Various grassland and shrubland habitats such as sagebrush scrub, pinyon-Juniper woodland, mountain mahogany shrublands, spruce-aspen woodlands (in New Mexico), and mixed woodlands. Unlike most shrews, Merriam’s Shrew generally uses drier habitats with fewer moist areas. Food and Feeding. Merriam’s Shrews feed primarily on invertebrates and caterpillars, making up large proportion of diets during warmer months. Stomach samples of eleven specimens contained spiders, adult and larval beetles, cave crickets, larval lepidopterans, and ichneumonid wasps, indicating that they forage on the ground and possibly arboreally (as indicated by wasps and larval lepidopterans). Breeding. Reproduction of Merriam’s Shrews seems to occur primarily in March—-October because pregnant and lactating females have been captured in March, April, July, and October.Litters have 5-7 young, based on three records. Activity patterns. Merriam’s Shrews are active day and night. They often use runways and burrows of microtine rodents and other small rodents to move around and nest. Movements, Home range and Social organization. Merriam’s Shrews are solitary except when breeding and rearing young. Status and Conservation. Classified as Least Concern on The IUCN Red List. Merriam’s Shrew has a very large distribution, but grasslands and shrublands that they rely on throughout the distribution are being converted to agriculture or altered by overgrazing. Bibliography. Armstrong & Jones (1971), Benedict et al. (1999), Benson & Bond (1939), Brown (1967), Cassola (20160), Diersing & Hoffmeister (1977), George (1988), Hafner & Stahlecker (2002), Johnson & Clanton (1954), Lindsay & Perry (1977), Mullican (1986), Mullican & Carraway (1990), Shaughnessy & Woodman (2015), Verts & Carraway (1988).

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.144 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomyFrench-language works237,207