MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388280619 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2023-0113

Population growth rates of pronghorn: influence of temporally and spatially explicit conditions, density dependence, and scale

2023· article· en· W4388280619 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eric M. Gese, Cole A. Bleke, Shane B. Roberts, Paul Atwood, Patricia A. Terletzky

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIdaho Department of Fish and GameMassachusetts Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsPopulation growthGrowth ratePopulation densityDensity dependenceElevation (ballistics)PopulationSteppeEcologyBiologyScale (ratio)GeographyDemographyAnimal scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Density-independent and density-dependent population regulation has long been a subject of investigation. We examined density-dependent and density-independent factors on growth rates of pronghorn ( Antilocapra americana (Ord, 1815)) using a retrospective analysis of population survey data. Across Idaho, we found that as the proportion of the subpopulation harvested the previous year increased, growth rates increased. Similarly, as fawn recruitment increased, growth rates increased. We also found when the growth rate in the previous year increased, the growth rate the subsequent year decreased. When subpopulations were examined independently, we found that in a low-elevation desert subpopulation, growth rates were influenced by growth the previous year. In an agricultural-dominated site, growth rates were influenced by fawn recruitment in the current year and maximum temperature the previous fall. Growth rates in a mid-elevation shrub–steppe site were influenced by drought severity prior to parturition and the growth rates from the previous year. Growth rates in two mountain valley subpopulations were influenced by measures of vegetative greenness. At the statewide scale, while managers may strive for increased numbers of pronghorn, density dependence will limit the ability for a region-wide numerical response. On the localized scale, drivers of growth were temporally and spatially explicit, and biologists must consider site-specific actions.

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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