MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801964280 · doi:10.2981/wlb.2002.017

Using survivorship curves to estimate age of first reproduction in moose <i>Alces alces</i>

2002· article· en· W2801964280 on OpenAlexaffabout
Steven H. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvivorship curveJuvenileDemographyMortality rateBiologyReproductionMaturity (psychological)Hunting seasonVital ratesInflection pointEcologyPopulationMathematicsPopulation growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age‐specific mortality of large mammals follows a general pattern of high juvenile mortality followed by low adult mortality. I outline a method which models this change in mortality rate to estimate age of maturity in hunted moose Alces alces populations. Kill data indicate that first time reproducers suffer the highest mortality during the hunting season. Cohort analysis of hunter kill data was used to estimate age‐specific female moose numbers and annual survival of cohorts over 18–26 years. Age at maturity was defined as age at the inflection point (highest mortality rate) of a third‐order log‐polynomial of annual survivorship curves. The inflection point demarcates the change in mortality rate between juvenile and adult life stages. Thus, the inflection point represents the greatest moose mortality rate during the hunting season and is likely associated with hunting mortality of inexperienced females accompanied by 6‐month‐old calves. I tested this method by estimating age of first reproduction (inflection point ‐ 0.5 years) and juvenile mortality for 15 Canadian moose populations. Results indicate a wide range of age at maturity (1.7–3.0 years) and percent of juveniles that survive to this age (29–70%). Estimating age at maturity from survivorship curves provides the opportunity to test life‐history 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 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)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207