MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1504354636 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v121i2.437

Colonization of Non-Traditional Range in Dispersing Elk, <em>Cervus elaphus nelsoni</em>, Populations

2007· article· en· W1504354636 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fred Van Dyke

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological dispersalUngulateHome rangeRange (aeronautics)HabitatIntraspecific competitionEcologyPopulationGeographyCervus elaphusPopulation densityCompetition (biology)BiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As ungulate populations increase in density on traditional range, resulting increases in intraspecific competition can encourage dispersal of some individuals to new areas. Such areas, although lower in density of conspecifics, might present unfamiliar arrays and types of habitat that could require altered patterns of home range and habitat use by dispersers. However, the specific adaptations employed by dispersers in such circumstances are not well documented or understood. I investigated three cases of range expansion by Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) populations experiencing population growth on traditional ranges in south-central Montana, USA. Each source population produced a group that dispersed to non-traditional areas. Compared to source populations, dispersing groups increased average size of home ranges, changed patterns of use in core areas of home ranges, and used habitats differently than Elk on traditional range. Dispersing groups demonstrated fidelity to new ranges equal to that of source populations, but their seasonal tenure on non-traditional range was strongly linked to environmental conditions, especially rainfall. Dispersal of groups increased the overall range of the population and its range of habitat use. In growing populations of Elk, managers should determine if dispersing groups exist and whether they should be protected to establish new populations in marginal areas or be reduced to limit potential Elk-landowner conflicts.

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 score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→