MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1924844519 · doi:10.1139/z06-210

Seasonal migration and home range of roe deer (<i>Capreolus capreolus</i>) in the Italian eastern Alps

2007· article· en· W1924844519 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maurizio Ramanzin, Enrico Sturaro, Davide Zanon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapreolusRoe deerSnowRange (aeronautics)BiologyHome rangeEcologyPhysical geographyGeographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although it has been demonstrated that European roe deer ( Capreolus capreolus (L. 1758)) may migrate seasonally in areas with snow gradients, this behaviour remains scarcely understood. From 1999 to 2002, radio-tracking techniques in an Italian alpine area showed that 40% of the 32 monitored roe deer migrated (12.0 ± 6.2 km, mean ± SD) from the high-elevation summer ranges to the low-elevation winter ranges. Proportions of migratory deer were similar for fawns and adults and for males and females. We documented a mixed migration strategy, with most deer migrating once to the winter range in years of heavy snowfalls, but many deer migrating inconsistently or only for a short period to the winter range in one year with very scarce snowfalls. Seasonal home-range sizes were similar for migratory and stationary deer, except in a winter with very shallow snow when migrators used unusually large home ranges. In all seasons, migrators showed a lower within home range site fidelity than did stationary deer. Our results indicate that seasonal migrations may be a common strategy exhibited by roe deer living in mountain areas to avoid deep snow, and that variability in climatic conditions might be responsible for the development of variable spatial strategies.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations54
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207