Differences in key habitat use between dominant and subordinate animals: intraterritorial dominance payoffs in Eurasian badgers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group-living territorial animals such as the Eurasian badger, Meles meles L., face the problem of intragroup competition. Badgers are asymmetric in their access to reproduction (dominant individuals being the ones that reproduce), but little information exists about the extent of intragroup trophic competition. We studied badgers' use of a key trophic resource (the European rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus), as well as the use of the habitat where this resource is located (key habitat, Mediterranean scrubland) by a low-density group-living population of badgers in Coto del Rey, Doñana, southwestern Spain. During 19951996, there was a 2.2-fold reduction of rabbit density, which was reflected in a significant diminution of rabbit use; despite this, rabbits continued to be the most used trophic resource. Notwithstanding the decrease in rabbit density, subordinate badgers reduced their use of the key habitat, while dominant badgers increased it. These results suggest that in Coto del Rey, badger groups exhibit a fully despotic system, with dominance by some individuals not only in access to reproduction, but also in access to food through unequal use of the key habitat that contains it.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".