MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7024598522

Seasonal and yearly changes in consumption of hypogeous fungi by northern flying squirrels and red squirrels in old-growth forest, New Brunswick

2004· article· en· W7024598522 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFungusSeasonalityTaxonKey (lock)National parkFood consumption
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seasonal consumption of mycorrhizal fungus by northern flying squirrels ('Glaucomys sabrinus') and red squirrels ('Tamiasciurus hudsonicus') was examined in old-growth mixedwood forest at Fundy National Park in southern New Brunswick between May 1999 and March 2001. Using faecal pellet analysis, we found that the amount of fungus in the diet of both species was dependent on season and year of study and ranged from 35% to 95%. Twenty fungal taxa, most of them hypogeous Ascomycetes and Basidiomycetes, were detected in diets. More taxa were detected in summer diets compared with all other seasons, but all seasonal samples contained several hypogeous taxa. Up to six taxa were identified in any one sample. Both squirrel species occurred at high densities throughout the study, and dietary overlap between them was great throughout this time in terms of both the amount of fungus and the proportions of different taxa that were consumed. Overall, our data suggest that both 'G. sabrinus' and 'T. hudsonicus' are abundant and important consumers of fungus in the region and that fungus may represent a key food resource, particularly during times when other foods are limited.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207