Capture Locations of Coyotes, <em>Canis latrans</em>, Bobcats, <em>Lynx rufus</em>, and Raccoons, <em>Procyon lotor</em>, Relative to Home Range Boundaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research showed that Coyotes (Canis latrans) and other canids might be more vulnerable to capture near the boundary or outside of their home ranges, making the capture of specific individuals within their territories difficult. Information concerning capture vulnerability relative to home range boundaries for other carnivores is lacking. During a four-year study of carnivore ecology in Kansas, we compared capture locations of Coyotes, Bobcats (Lynx rufus), and Raccoons (Procyon lotor) to their home range boundaries to determine if they were more likely to be captured inside, or near the periphery of, their home ranges. Resident Coyotes were captured disproportionately more often (P < 0.01) near the periphery of their home ranges, whereas Bobcats, Raccoons, and transient Coyotes were captured equally (P > 0.05) in both areas of their home ranges. Differences in capture vulnerability within and between species might be related to differences in social organization and behavior.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".