<b>REGULAR ARTICLES / ARTICLES RÉGULIERS</b>The effects of refuse-feeding on home-range use, group size, and intergroup encounters in the banded mongoose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of food availability and distribution on population dynamics have been the subject of numerous experimental studies, but no study has quantified the effects of a concentrated supplementary food supply on groups of a social carnivore. We investigated the effects of refuse-feeding at garbage dumps on banded mongoose (Mungos mungo) groups. Garbage dumps represent a reliable, concentrated source of food. Data were collected from three refuse and seven nonrefuse-feeding groups in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. Groups were located using radiotelemetry, and home-range size and use, group size and population density, and intergroup encounter rate were analysed. Although refuse-feeding groups had home ranges similar in size to those of nonrefuse-feeding groups, their home-range use was more concentrated and their core areas always included the available predictable garbage dumps. Two of the three refuse-feeding groups were larger and denser than other groups. The two groups that shared the same garbage dump had significantly higher intergroup encounter rates than all other groups and their encounters occurred at the shared dump.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.341 | 0.129 |
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".