MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037802957 · doi:10.1139/z04-011

Predation by red fox on European roe deer fawns in relation to age, sex, and birth date

2004· article· en· W2037802957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anders Jarnemo, Olof Liberg, Steffan Lockowandt, Agneta Olsson, Kjell Wahlström

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStiftelsen Oscar och Lili Lamms Minne
KeywordsCapreolusPredationBiologyRoe deerVulpesCervus elaphusZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mortality in radio-marked European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus (Linnaeus, 1758)) neonates was studied during 14 years in a mixed forest–agricultural landscape in Sweden. A total of 233 fawns were marked. Births were synchronized, with 79% occurring during 25 days and a peak between 25 May and 7 June encompassing 62% of the births. Overall mortality was 42%, but in three single years, it exceeded 85%. Predation by red fox (Vulpes vulpes Desmarest, 1820) accounted for 81% of total mortality. The effects of age, sex, and time of birth on the vulnerability to predation were analysed. Fawns born just after the birth peak had the lowest predation risk. Predation rate was highest for the fawns that had the very earliest or the very latest birth dates. Predation thereby seems to strengthen the birth synchrony in roe deer. Contrary to earlier published findings, there was no difference in susceptibility to predation between the sexes. Also differing from earlier findings was that predation rate was highest during the first week of life and declined thereafter almost linearly. The majority of the fawns (85%) were killed before 30 days of age and 98% before 40 days. Different types of landscapes may explain the discrepancies between our study and earlier findings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations73
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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