Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human development typically fragments natural habitats into patches, affecting population and metapopulation dynamics via changes in animal behavior. Emigration from one habitat patch to another has a large effect on population and metapopulation dynamics. One factor that affects emigration is permeability of patch edges. This study looks at the effects of edge shape (convex, concave, and straight) on edge permeability for meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus).. I tested five hypotheses for responses of animal movement to patch shape: (1) neutral edge response; (2) edge attraction; (3) edge avoidance; (4) time-minimizing, in which an animal attempts to minimize the time spent in inhospitable matrix, and thus travels as far as possible in the patch before crossing the edge; and (5) protection, in which an animal attempts to maximize protection while in the inhospitable matrix by keeping the patch close by. These hypotheses were tested by an experimental manipulation of meadow vole habitats. A strip was mowed with different edge shapes through an old field, and vole response was measured by tracking plates. Voles crossed edges at concave treatments twice as often compared to convex and straight shapes. Hypotheses (2) and (5) were supported. Although edge attraction causes a passive effect of a decrease in edge-crossing at concavities, this effect was eclipsed by the active effect of voles choosing to cross at concavities. The results can be generalized to edge tortuosity in general. Conservation biologists should consider edge shapes when exploring the effects of habitat fragmentation on animal populations.
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 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".