The influence of predation risk on foraging behaviour of brushtail possums in Australian woodlands
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential effects of predation risk on common brushtail possums were investigated in south-eastern Australian woodlands. Patterns of habitat use, foraging costs using giving-up density (GUD) experiments, and indices of body condition and reproductive success were examined at eight sites in two habitat types (eucalypt- or cypress-pine–dominated stands), within three areas of different red fox abundance (high, moderate and low fox density). In cypress-pine–dominated stands, possums travelled further on the ground, visited more feeding stations and had lower GUDs at feeders where foxes were removed than did possums in high-fox-density sites. In contrast, there was no effect of fox removal on the behaviour of possums in eucalypt-dominated stands. Fox removal also had no effect on indices of body condition and reproduction. Minor effects of microhabitat were detected with trackplot and GUD experiments, but, overall, the results suggest that habitat at the stand-level was more important. The non-lethal effects of foxes in different habitats may need to be taken into account when developing conservation strategies for native marsupials.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it