Isometric scaling in home-range size of male and female bobcats (Lynx rufus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For solitary carnivores a polygynous mating system should lead to predictable patterns in space-use dynamics. Females should be most influenced by resource distribution and abundance, whereas polygynous males should be strongly influenced by female spatial dynamics. We gathered mean annual home-range-size estimates for male and female bobcats ( Lynx rufus (Schreber, 1777)) from previous studies to address variation in home-range size for this solitary, polygynous carnivore that ranges over much of North America. Mean annual home ranges for bobcats (171 males, 214 females) from 29 populations covering the entire north to south and east to west range demonstrated female home-range sizes varied more than an order of magnitude and that, on average, males maintained home ranges 1.65 times the size of females. Male home-range sizes scaled isometrically with female home-range sizes indicating that male bobcats increase their home-range size proportional to female home-range size. Using partial correlation analysis we also detected an inverse relationship between environmental productivity, estimated using the normalized difference vegetation index, and home-range size for females but not males. This study provides one of the few empirical assessments of how polygyny influences home-range dynamics for a wide-ranging carnivore.
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".