MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SELECTION OF MULE DEER BY MOUNTAIN LIONS AND COYOTES: EFFECTS OF HUNTING STYLE, BODY SIZE, AND REPRODUCTIVE STATUS

2000· article· en· W2175067556 on OpenAlex
Becky M. Pierce, Vernon C. Bleich, R. Terry Bowyer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArctic Institute of North AmericaCalifornia Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsPredationOdocoileusCanisPopulationEcologyBiologyForagingZoologyGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predation on mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) by mountain lions (Puma concolor) and coyotes (Canis latrans) was examined to test effects of hunting style and body size, and for mountain lions reproductive status, on selection of prey. Mountain lions, which hunt by stalking, selected ≤1-year-old mule deer as prey. Body condition of mule deer did not affect prey selection by coyotes or mountain lions, and both predators preyed upon females and older adult deer more often than expected based on the percentage of these groups in the population. Female mountain lions selected female deer, but male mountain lions did not. Female mountain lions without offspring, however, did not differ from male mountain lions in prey selection. Coyotes did not select for young deer. Female mountain lions with kittens were selective for young deer in late summer.

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.

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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.196 · 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