Horn growth appears to decline under intense trophy hunting, but biases in hunt data challenge the interpretation of the evolutionary basis of trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A recent article in Evolutionary Applications by LaSharr et al. reports on trends in the size of horns of bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis ) throughout much of the species’ range. The article concludes that there are “... stable or increasing trends in horn growth over nearly 3 decades in the majority of hunt areas throughout the western U.S. and Canada.” However, the article equates nonsignificance of predominantly negative trends in the areas with the most selective harvest as evidence for the null hypothesis of no trends and also fails to consider well‐known and serious biases in the use of data collected in size‐regulated hunts. By applying meta‐analysis to the estimates reported by LaSharr et al., we show that there has been a pervasive overall trend of declining horn sizes in Alberta, where the combination of horn size‐based legality, combined with unrestricted hunter numbers are understood to generate the greatest selective pressures. Given the nature of the biases in the underlying data, the magnitudes of the trends resulting from our re‐analysis of LaSharr et al.'s ( Evolutionary Applications , 2019, 12 , 1823 ) trend estimates are probably underestimated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".