MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942653959 · doi:10.1002/ecy.2698

Interspecific prey neighborhoods shape risk of predation in a savanna ecosystem

2019· article· en· W2942653959 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline C. Ng’weno, Adam T. Ford, Alfred K. Kibungei, Jacob R. Goheen

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSchlumberger Foundation
KeywordsPredationInterspecific competitionEcologyEcosystemGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vulnerability of an individual to predation depends on the availability of other prey items in the surrounding environment. Interspecific prey aggregations or "neighborhoods" may therefore affect an individual's vulnerability to predation. We examined the influence of prey neighborhood structure (i.e., the densities and identities of prey neighborhoods) on spatial variation in predation in a multi-prey system with a primary apex predator. We combined GPS locations of lions (Panthera leo), kill-site surveys, and spatially explicit density estimates of five species of ungulates for which a significant level of predation was attributable to lions. In addition to the dual influence of predator activity and vegetation, predation risk was attributable to the structure of prey neighborhoods for at least two of the five species of prey. Along with traditionally recognized components of predation (the rate of predator-prey encounters and prey catchability), we encourage ecologists to consider how prey neighborhood structure influences spatial variation in predation risk.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.202
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207