MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048702837

Variability in the Selection Patterns of Pronghorn: Are they Really Native Prairie Obligates?

2015· article· en· W3048702837 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul F. Jones, Mike Grue, Mike Suitor, Darren J. Bender, Cormack C. Gates, Dale Eslinger, Julie Landry-Deboer

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)GeographyRemote sensingEcologyComputer scienceBiologyArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) are primarily considered a native prairie obligate because of their reliance on open grassland vegetation communities, although an assessment of local ecological knowledge suggests that pronghorn in Alberta select a variety of habitat from native prairie to cultivated lands. The primary objective of our study was to assess whether pronghorn in Alberta and Saskatchewan are native prairie obligates. Specifically, we addressed the following questions: 1) do individual pronghorn show similar selection patterns for native prairie and, therefore, support the notion that they are prairie obligates; 2) do pronghorn show consistent resource selection patterns at multiple scales (landscape and within-seasonal range); and 3) to what extent are selection patterns of pronghorn influenced by highways and roads. Within Alberta, we captured, collared, and monitored for one year individual female pronghorn in December 2003 (n = 24), March 2005 (n = 25), and March 2006 (n = 25). A detrended correspondence analysis of patterns of habitat selection revealed three distinct groups of pronghorn (r2 = 0.96, n = 55) that we labeled native, cultivated, and mixed, referring to the dominant land cover in their parturition ranges. We used logistic regression to model resource selection patterns of the three groups of pronghorn during the parturition and winter periods at the landscape and within-seasonal range scales. At the landscape scale, each group of pronghorn had top models consisting of the variables land cover, landform, distance to express highways, distance to arterial roads, and distance to collector roads for both periods. The native and mixed groups were less likely to use annual and perennial cropland than native prairie habitats, whereas the cultivated group was more likely to use annual and perennial cropland. At the within-seasonal range scale, the top models for each group in both seasons consisted of one or more road variables, but the top models exhibited poor model fit. Our results do not show a clear association for native prairie, which we would have expected if pronghorn were native prairie obligates, suggestive of plasticity in behavior. We acknowledge that patterns of habitat selection do not indicate habitat quality or fitness; therefore, to understand the individual- and population-level consequences of selecting sub-optimal habitats, such as agricultural landscapes, further research is needed.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207