Size and habitat composition of female mallard home ranges in the prairie-parkland region of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wetland density is believed to be an important determinant of variation in size of mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) home ranges, but hypothesized effects of upland habitat and female size and age have not been adequately evaluated. Thus, we investigated correlates of home-range size using unique radio-tracking data for 131 female mallards studied on 12 Canadian prairie-parkland sites in 19951998. Home-range size and habitat composition varied within and among study areas; overall, variation in home-range size was best modeled to include effects of seasonal and semipermanent wetlands (β = 0.06 ± 0.01; mean ± SE) and woodlandshrubland habitat (β = 0.03 ± 0.01). Contrary to predictions, we obtained no support for a positive association between home-range size and female body size or a negative relationship between home-range size and female age. After controlling for confounding effects of wetland density, home ranges were larger, on average, on study areas with lower densities of mallard breeding pairs; therefore, we suspect that individual home ranges were smaller in areas of high pair density because of increased intraspecific competition for breeding space. A higher proportion of woodlandshrubland habitat likely contributed to the smaller size of individual home ranges because of a greater relative availability of preferred nesting habitat.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".