Relationship between predation-risk factors and sexual segregation in Dall's sheep (<i>Ovis dalli dalli</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a population of Dall's sheep (Ovis dalli dalli), we examined two of the four main sexual-segregation hypotheses proposed: (1) the reproductive-strategy hypothesis, which proposes that males feed in the best foraging areas to enhance their reproductive fitness and females use areas with lower predation risk to raise offspring; and (2) the sexual dimorphism body size hypothesis, which proposes that females use the areas with best forage to satisfy the nutritional demands of gestation and lactation, and that males, owing to their larger body size, have greater absolute metabolic requirements and therefore have to feed on forages which are more abundant but of lower quality. In our study, males were found farther from cover, in gentle terrain, and at lower altitude than were female groups, which were near cliffs or talus at higher altitudes. Female groups without lambs left cover, but were always active (feeding or moving). Forage density index values were higher in areas used by males than in areas used by female groups. Nutritional components were generally similar, but fibre content was higher in male areas. Signs of wolves (Canis lupus) and predation on Dall's sheep were recorded only at male areas. The results support the reproductive-strategy hypothesis, indicating that predation plays a key role in the development of sexual segregation in Dall's sheep.
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 | 0.001 | 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".