Habitat selection by parturient elk (Cervus elaphus) in agricultural and forested landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I examined the home range and habitat selection of 146 radio-collared female elk ( Cervus elaphus L., 1758) from 2002 to 2005 during the calving period (15 May to 24 June). I determined the proportion of home ranges of parturient cow elk during the calving period and the proportion of birthing sites of elk that were in either forested protected areas or the adjacent fragmented agriculture-dominated matrix in southwestern Manitoba, Canada. Overall, 73% of the minimum convex polygon home ranges were entirely within a protected area, 6% were only on farmland, and 21% included both. Home ranges including farmland and protected area (mean = 17.9 km2) were 3.8 times larger than those entirely inside a protected area (mean = 4.7 km2) or only on farmland (mean = 4.5 km2) (U = –2.79, P = 0.005). Female elk remaining solely in protected areas selected deciduous and mixedwood forest, marsh and fen, and water at the scale of the home range. Elk exclusively on farmland selected forage crops only. At the scale of the birthing site, females on farmland and those in protected areas selected only deciduous forest, and both types avoided agricultural cropland and marsh and fen. Identification of calving habitat will allow resource managers to manage bovine tuberculosis in the population more effectively.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".