An extensive study of the foraging ecology of beavers (<i>Castor canadensis</i>) in relation to habitat quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the foraging behaviour of the beaver (Castor canadensis Kuhl, 1820) and to explain its selection of terrestrial woody plant species according to central place foraging theory. Limitations in variety of food items in most studies with regard to size and (or) distance from the central place and information on availability of forage choices give a partial view of the subject. In this study, the theory is tested in a natural environment with high variability in food items with regard to these factors. Foraging choices by beavers were inspected by measuring variables on cut and uncut trees of every species encountered within 1 m of trail systems made by 25 beaver colonies in Kouchibouguac National Park in New Brunswick, Canada, thereby quantifying the availability of the different food items. The effect of habitat quality (food availability) on the foraging behaviour of beavers was also tested. The results of this study suggest that with increasing distance from the pond, beavers in high-quality habitats selected fewer, but larger, trees and are more species selective. This selectivity was diminished in habitats of lower quality. The results of this study are consistent with the predictions of the central foraging theory.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".