Site fidelity, migratory behaviour, and spatial organization of female isards (Rupicapra pyrenaica) in the Pyrenees National Park, France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied from 1993 to 2002 the spatial organization of visually marked females in an isard ( Rupicapra pyrenaica Bonaparte, 1845) population in the Pyrenees National Park. In winter, all individuals were concentrated within the same 3.7 km2 refuge area. In summer, two patterns of space use were recorded: sedentary females (n = 33; 52.2%) remained within the refuge area, whereas migrating females (n = 29; 46.8%) summered outside the refuge area, at a horizontal distance of 1.4–9.2 km and 300–800 m higher in elevation than their winter ranges. Females were faithful to their seasonal ranges. The population was organized in well-defined spatial units in summer. This organization was roughly preserved in winter, despite the spatial concentration of the individuals by this season. The resulting spatial clustering might reduce spatial competition and pathogenic contamination between groups, allowing the maintenance of high population density. The appearance of a migratory pattern occurred probably as a result of the protected status of the species, which allowed the population to increase. Some individuals dispersed as a result of the population density increase. The two recorded patterns of space use likely arose from spatial attachment and social affinity that developed in the first years of a female’s life, and could explain the coexistence of the two spatial patterns.
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 | 0.001 | 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".