Body mass explains characteristic scales of habitat selection in terrestrial mammals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Niche theory in its various forms is based on those environmental factors that permit species persistence, but less work has focused on defining the extent, or size, of a species' environment: the area that explains a species' presence at a point in space. We proposed that this habitat extent is identifiable from a characteristic scale of habitat selection, the spatial scale at which habitat best explains species' occurrence. We hypothesized that this scale is predicted by body size. We tested this hypothesis on 12 sympatric terrestrial mammal species in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. For each species, habitat models varied across the 20 spatial scales tested. For six species, we found a characteristic scale; this scale was explained by species' body mass in a quadratic relationship. Habitat measured at large scales best-predicted habitat selection in both large and small species, and small scales predict habitat extent in medium-sized species. The relationship between body size and habitat selection scale implies evolutionary adaptation to landscape heterogeneity as the driver of scale-dependent habitat selection.
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.
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 it