MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026424521 · doi:10.1139/z09-009

Wintering strategies by mountain goats in interior mountains

2009· article· en· W2026424521 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kim G. Poole, Kari Stuart-Smith, Irene Teske

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of EnvironmentWorld Wildlife Fund CanadaCollege of the Rockies
FundersMinistry of Environment
KeywordsSnowHabitatRange (aeronautics)EcologyHome rangePhysical geographyElevation (ballistics)Mountain range (options)JuvenileBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As with many ungulates inhabiting areas with potentially deep snow, winter is an important season for mountain goats ( Oreamnos americanus (de Blainville, 1816)) and is characterized by restricted movements and high juvenile mortality. We examined winter habitat selection and wintering strategies by mountain goats in two adjacent areas of southeastern British Columbia characterized by deep, moist snow and by shallow, dry snow. Fifteen GPS collars were placed on mountain goats in each area over two winters. Winter-range size did not differ between areas and comprised, on average, 2.2%–7.4% of male home range and 8.0%–14.1% of female home range. Topographic variables dominated habitat model selection. At the broad scale, mountain goats in both areas selected winter ranges closer to escape terrain on warmer aspects that contained lesser amounts of mature dense forest. At the fine scale, mountain goats in both areas selected rugged habitat at upper mid-elevations and on warmer aspects. Alpine areas were avoided in the deep snow area and selected in the shallow snow area. No selection for mature forests was observed in either area. Mountain goats, therefore, appeared to utilize open, high-elevation habitats in shallow snow zones, but they did not seek reduced snow levels in mature forest stands in deep snow areas.

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 score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations43
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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