MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395465111 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.190219

Linking Elephant Movement Patterns to Vegetation Dynamics in Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park

2024· article· en· W4395465111 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gunardi Djoko Winarno, Ricky Avenzora, Sambas Basuni, M. Bismark

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational parkGeographyMovement (music)Vegetation (pathology)National nature reserveEnvironmental resource managementForestryArchaeologyEnvironmental scienceNature reserveArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of understanding elephant movement patterns in relation to vegetation conditions in their home range is for sustainable habitat management strategies. This study aims to map the movement patterns of elephants across different habitat vegetation within their home range and to correlate these patterns with vegetation metrics such as species richness, diversity, and the Importance Value Index, as well as elephant feeding preferences. The study was conducted by placing 100 plots in the home range based on the intensity of the movement of elephants in various types of vegetation; primary forest, secondary forest, shrubs, and gardens in Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park. Movement data of elephants taken from GPS Collars available in WWF Lampung. Non-parametric statistical analysis using SPSS to test the significant relationship between variables ( 2 ). The results showed that the value of species richness, diversity, and evenness in a primary forest is high. The intensity of elephant movement is lowest in primary forest when compared to secondary forest, shrubs and gardens. The implications of this research are the importance of maintaining forests for the protection and development of elephant populations and the need to map areas frequently visited by elephants.

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)0.000
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicForest Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207