MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2887829476 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2017-0290

Home-range size and fidelity of two sympatric <i>Martes</i> species

2018· article· en· W2887829476 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jérémy Larroque, Sandrine Ruette, Jean‐Michel Vandel, Sébastien Devillard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMartenHome rangeSympatric speciationBiologyEcologyRange (aeronautics)HabitatMustelidaeSympatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining variation in home-range behavior and the factors shaping this variation is crucial to better understand the biology of species and thus improve their management and conservation. We investigated age and sex variations in the home-range and core-area sizes, as well as fidelity to home range, of the stone marten (Martes foina (Erxleben, 1777)) and the European pine marten (Martes martes (Linnaeus, 1758)) in a rural area (Bresse, France) over several seasons. As expected, pine martens had larger home ranges and core areas than stone martens. Sex differences were also evidenced in both species in accordance with the typical mustelid pattern of socio-spatial organization. Beyond these differences, we found that both species responded to seasonal changes by adjusting seasonally the locations rather than their home-range and core-area sizes, especially stone martens. This difference might come from the higher intensity of perturbation in the preferred habitat of stone martens (human buildings), which explains why stone martens showed lower fidelity than pine martens.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→