MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117185356 · doi:10.14430/arctic4380

Aggression and Coexistence in Female Caribou

2014· article· en· W2117185356 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Floyd W. Weckerly, Mark A. Ricca

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyWestern Ecological Research Center, U.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceTexas State University
KeywordsAggressionPolygynyDemographyAgonistic behaviourEcologyBiologyZoologyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Female caribou (Rangifer tarandus) are highly gregarious, yet there has been little study of the behavioral mechanisms that foster coexistence. Quantifying patterns of aggression between male and female, particularly in the only cervid taxa where both sexes grow antlers, should provide insight into these mechanisms. We asked if patterns of aggression by male and female caribou followed the pattern typically noted in other polygynous cervids, in which males display higher frequencies and intensity of aggression. From June to August in 2011 and 2012, we measured the frequency and intensity of aggression across a range of group sizes through focal animal sampling of 170 caribou (64 males and 106 females) on Adak Island in the Aleutian Archipelago, Alaska. Males in same-sex and mixed-sex groups and females in mixed-sex groups had higher frequencies of aggression than females in same-sex groups. Group size did not influence frequency of aggression. Males displayed more intense aggression than females. Frequent aggression in mixed-sex groups probably reflects lower tolerance of males for animals in close proximity. Female caribou were less aggressive and more gregarious than males, as in other polygynous cervid species.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207