MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3206786108 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2021-0085

Space use in free-ranging canids: are gonadal hormones required for territory maintenance?

2021· article· en· W3206786108 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eric M. Gese, Patricia A. Terletzky

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHome rangeCanisTerritorialityPopulationRange (aeronautics)FertilityPhilopatryZoologyEcologyDemographyPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fertility control among carnivores has been used to reduce depredations on livestock and wild neonates, population control, modify behavior, inhibit genetic introgression, and reduce human–wildlife conflicts. Although there is considerable knowledge on techniques to sterilize carnivores, there is little information concerning how the absence of gonadal hormones influences behavior, space use, and survival of wild canids. We examined territorial fidelity, home-range size and overlap, and survival of 179 surgically sterilized free-ranging canids (124 coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823), 55 coyote – red wolf (Canis rufus Audubon and Bachman, 1851) hybrids) with gonadal hormones present (tubal-ligated females (n = 70), vasectomized males (n = 73)) versus absent (spayed females (n = 22), neutered males (n = 14)). The absence of gonadal hormones did not influence annual home-range size and home-range overlap, territory fidelity, and annual survival rates. Additionally, no differences were detected across sexes and hormonal treatments in annual home-range size, percent home-range overlap, annual home-range residency rates, and annual survival rates. Methods of fertility control that do not keep gonadal organs intact may prove useful for management without concern for changes in behavior, mainly territoriality, space use, and survival.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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