MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390774428 · doi:10.1101/2024.01.04.574266

Movement-integrated habitat selection reveals wolves balance ease of travel with human avoidance in a risk-reward trade-off

2024· preprint· en· W4390774428 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Katrien A. Kingdon, Christina M. Prokopenko, Daniel L. J. Dupont, Julie W. Turner, Jonathan P. Wiens, Vanessa B. Harriman, Eric Vander Wal

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsManitoba HydroUniversité de Saint-BonifaceDucks Unlimited CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaManitoba Hydro
KeywordsHabitatWildlifeMovement (music)EcologyGeographySelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceBiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Anthropogenic linear features are often linked to alterations in wildlife behaviour and movement. Landscape features such as habitat can have important mediating effects on wildlife response to disturbance and yet is rarely explicitly considered in how it interacts with other features. This study tests the effects of habitat variation on the space-use responses of GPS-collared wolves to linear features in eastern Manitoba. We simultaneously model wolf movement and selection within a conditional logistic regression framework (integrated Step Selection Analysis) with explicit consideration for how habitat alters these responses through either added cover or friction to movement. Classifying linear features based on the selection and movement response of wolves revealed that pairing transmission lines and primary roads increased the avoidance response to be greater than either feature on their own and provided evidence of a semi-permeable barrier to movement. In contrast, features with reduced human activity, including secondary and tertiary roads were highly selected for and provided access to movement corridors. Explicit parameterization of habitat provides evidence that where a linear feature is routed and which habitats it interacts with will have the greatest implications for wolf behavioural responses. Reduction of avoidance behavioural in highly risky environments signifies the importance of habitat for maintaining landscape connectivity, particularly when routing multiple features together. Natural regrowth along these features reduced movement advantages by increasing friction, indicating that actively decommissioning other features such as secondary roads would have important implications for reducing wolf encounters with prey. Knowing the influence of adjacent habitats on the likelihood of wolves selecting for a given linear feature creates context to minimize the impact of new anthropogenic features on behaviour.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→