MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118788059 · doi:10.1139/z05-039

Functional feeding responses of coyotes, <i>Canis latrans, </i>to fluctuating prey abundance in the Curlew Valley, Utah, 1977–1993

2005· article· en· W2118788059 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rebecca A. Bartel, Frederick F. Knowlton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Wildlife Research Center
KeywordsPredationBiologyFunctional responseCanisAbundance (ecology)RodentEcologyNumerical responsePredatorZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated interactions between coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823) and prey in the Curlew Valley, Utah, by comparing prey abundances with prey consumption rates. Previous studies reported a cyclic trend in black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus Gray, 1837) density with a period of 10 years and >150-fold amplitude, as well as short-term fluctuations among some rodent species that exceeded an 8-fold difference in amplitude over 2 years. Our results suggest changes in coyote diets mainly reflect the fluctuations in jackrabbit abundance. Prey switching to rodents during periods of low jackrabbit abundance also was evident. We used the initial feeding pattern analysis to compare prey consumption rates to prey abundance. Coyotes demonstrated a type II (hyperbolic) functional feeding response to changes in jackrabbit abundance. Functional feeding responses to rodent abundances were more difficult to assess because of the strong influence of jackrabbits. In most comparisons, we visually detected a linear functional feeding response to varying rodent abundances; yet this was not statistically supported by Akaike's Information Criterion corrected for small sample sizes (AICc) to assess different models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations43
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207