MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385659797 · doi:10.7717/peerj.15625

Bighorn sheep associations: understanding tradeoffs of sociality and implications for disease transmission

2023· article· en· W4385659797 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marie I. Tosa, Mark Biel, Tabitha A. Graves

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyNational Park ServiceParks Canada
KeywordsOvis canadensisSocialityEcologyBiologyGeographyHabitatSeasonal breederDemographyPopulationPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sociality directly influences mating success, survival rates, and disease, but ultimately likely evolved for its fitness benefits in a challenging environment. The tradeoffs between the costs and benefits of sociality can operate at multiple scales, resulting in different interpretations of animal behavior. We investigated the influence of intrinsic (e.g., relatedness, age) and extrinsic factors (e.g., land cover type, season) on direct contact (simultaneous GPS locations ≤ 25 m) rates of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) at multiple scales near the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park. During 2002–2012, male and female bighorn were equipped with GPS collars. Indirect contact (GPS locations ≤ 25 m regardless of time) networks identified two major breaks whereas direct contact networks identified an additional barrier in the population, all of which corresponded with prior disease exposure metrics. More direct contacts occurred between same-sex dyads than female-male dyads and between bighorn groups with overlapping summer home ranges. Direct contacts occurred most often during the winter-spring season when bighorn traveled at low speeds and when an adequate number of bighorn were collared in the area. Direct contact probabilities for all dyad types were inversely related to habitat quality, and differences in contact probability were driven by variables related to survival such as terrain ruggedness, distance to escape terrain, and canopy cover. We provide evidence that probabilities of association are higher when there is greater predation risk and that contact analysis provides valuable information for understanding fitness tradeoffs of sociality and disease transmission potential.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207