Litter size, sex ratio, and age structure of gray wolves, Canis lupus, in relation to population fluctuations in northern Belarus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gray wolf ( Canis lupus L., 1758) population fluctuations in northern Belarus (Vitebsk region) between 1990 and 2003 were significantly affected by hunting pressure by humans. Mean litter size was inversely density dependent and varied from 4.8 to 7.7 pups (range 2–10). The increase in litter size with declining density of wolf population concerned only female pups, whereas the number of male pups in a litter was not related to population density. The sex ratio of pups varied significantly: the proportion of females reached 70% in a low-density wolf population and declined to 40%–50% in a high-density population. The age structure also varied. In years following heavy hunting pressure, 55% of individuals shot were juveniles <1 year old (with a strong predominance of females that constituted 69% of juveniles shot), and only 11% of wolves were older than 4 years. The mean age of all wolves shot was 1.5 years. In years following low hunting pressure, 34% of animals shot were juveniles and 20% exceeded 4 years. The mean age was 2.8 years. A female-biased sex ratio of wolf pups conforms to Hiraiwa-Hasegawa’s hypothesis of the advantaged daughter, proposed for species in which mothers are able to influence the reproductive success of their daughters through transmission of rank.
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".