Population demographics and space use of white-tailed deer in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I studied population demographics and space-use of white-tailed deer in Manistee and Mason counties in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan during 2005-08. Deer density from spring spotlight distance sampling surveys was 20.1 ± 1.7 deer/km2. The sex ratio was 14 bucks:100 does and the age ratio was 84 fawns:100 does. I radiomarked and monitored 105 does (62 adults and 43 fawns) for survival and space use. Annual adult survival was 0.74 ± 0.06, with most mortalities (n = 8 of 23) caused by human harvest. Adult survival was the highest during winter (1.00) and lowest in autumn (0.81 ± 0.08). Winter/spring fawn survival was 0.74 ± 0.06, with all mortalities caused by predation (n = 4) and starvation (n = 3). Mean size of composite home-ranges and core-areas were 2.0 ± 0.1 km2 and 0.4 ± 0.02 km2, respectively, and did not differ seasonally. Cover-type use did not differ seasonally between home ranges and core areas, indicating that deer did not select specific cover types within their home range. Vegetated openland and mast-producing upland forests received the highest proportion of use in home ranges (47% and 23%, respectively) and core areas (49% and 21%, respectively). These data will be beneficial for modeling deer population growth and response to harvest and to focus habitat management prescriptions for the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".