Winter habitat selection at three spatial scales by American Elk, Cervus elaphus, in west-central Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Winter habitat selection at three spatial scales by American Elk, Cervus elaphus, in west-central Alberta.Canadian Field-Naturalist 116(2): 183-191.Selection by American Elk (Cervus elaphus) at the landscape (2 order), stand (3" order), and site level (4 order) was examined in west-central Alberta from 1 December 1994 to 21 March 1995.At the landscape level, elk home ranges had a lower mean road density, but greater mean unimproved access density.Elk home ranges had smaller mean patch sizes and greater patch density.There was no significant selection on the basis of food and cover composition.At a stand level, elk used the grass/meadow habitat more than expected while all other habitat types were used in proportion to their availability.At a site scale, we attempted to distinguish habitat use for feeding and bedding.Feeding sites had a lower mean percent canopy closure, percent shrub cover, stem density and tree height, but a higher mean percent grass cover than bedding sites.Feeding sites were significantly closer to unimproved access than were bedding sites.Feeding sites had more grass cover and significantly less canopy closure, percent shrub cover, spruce, pine, and fir in the canopy, and lower tree height and stem density than the control plots.They were located significantly closer to unimproved access and farther from hiding cover.Bedding sites had a higher percent grass cover, less spruce, pine and fir in the canopy, and a lower stem density than the control plots.In terms of spatial attributes, elk exhibited no selection when choosing bedding sites.The need to examine habitat selection patterns at more than one scale is discussed
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".