MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200439973 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2021-0166

Variation in age of primiparity in mountain goats (<i>Oreamnos americanus</i>) estimated from horn growth increments

2021· article· en· W4200439973 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Chad Rice, Benjamin Larue, Marco Festa‐Bianchet

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPopulationBiologyWildlifeMark and recaptureRange (aeronautics)EcologyFrench hornPopulation declineHabitatDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variation in age of primiparity is important for population dynamics and wildlife management because it can affect population growth. Using a novel technique based on the trade-off between annual horn growth and reproduction, we estimated the age of primiparity for 2274 female mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus (Blainville, 1816)) harvested across British Columbia, Canada, from 1976 to 2019. We then investigated spatio-temporal variation in the probability that harvested females were primiparous when aged 3, 4, or 5 years and older using Bayesian ordinal regressions. We found that the probability of primiparity at 3 years decreased over time in nearly all mountain ranges. In the Coastal Mountain range, however, the probability of primiparity at age 3 significantly increased. These results suggest that the large coastal populations of mountain goats could be more resilient to harvest than other populations in British Columbia, which may be experiencing environmental effects promoting later primiparity. Models predicting age of primiparity from annual growth measures are a valuable tool for wildlife management and could help conservation of many species.

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 score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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