The Influence of Thermal Protection on Winter Den Selection by Porcupines, <em>Erethizon dorsatum</em>, in Second-Growth Conifer Forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I investigated den type selection by Porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum), in relation to the thermal cover provided by the den type, over a period of four winters. Porcupines used log dens, stump dens and rock dens in proportion to the thermal cover provided by each den type. Based on behavioural observations of Porcupines, I assumed that the lower critical temperature for porcupines in my study area was -4°C. Both stump and rock dens provided adequate thermal protection, under most ambient conditions, to allow Porcupines to maintain their body temperature, without increasing basal metabolic rate. In most cases rock and stump dens maintained den temperatures above -4°C until ambient temperatures reached -12°C or lower. In contrast log dens provided poor thermal protection, even in years of thick snowcover. When ambient temperatures dropped below -4°C, den temperatures within log dens were also recorded below -4°C. Log dens were used least often by Porcupines, whereas stump and rock dens were used most often. Despite the large number of potential dens available to Porcupines within the study area, den use was generally limited to three dens per porcupine per winter. The limited use of dens by an individual porcupine during winter may be related to the energetic cost of finding a new den or it may be related to specific selection criteria used by Porcupines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".