MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416911755 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2024-0182

Intrapopulation variation in habitat use of an alpine ungulate: mountain goats in Kitasoo Xai'xais Territory

2025· article· en· W4416911755 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Tyler D. Jessen, Christina N. Service, Kevin S. White, A. Cole Burton, Paul C. Paquet, Chris T. Darimont

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaRaincoast Conservation FoundationUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHabitatWildlifeAerial surveyOccupancyPopulationElevation (ballistics)ForageVariation (astronomy)Wildlife conservation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intraspecific variation in space use among wildlife arises from different selective pressures facing individuals within populations. Such variation is important for wildlife management, especially when differences occur among reproductive individuals, juveniles, or other demographically significant groups. Age- and sex-specific segregation is common among ungulates, including mountain goats ( Oreamnos americanus (Blainville, 1816)). We hypothesized that mountain goats with and without kids would exhibit different space use in a peripheral population inhabiting Kitasoo Xai'xais First Nation Territory on the coast of British Columbia, Canada. Using aerial survey data from August 2019 and 2020, we fit multi-state occupancy models to estimate mountain goat habitat use in relation to landscape features. We predicted that groups with kids would preferentially use more rugged areas with ample escape terrain, while groups without kids (including solitary males and non-reproductive individuals) would use areas with greater forage availability. We found that the probability of mountain goat occurrence increased with elevation ( p < 0.001), while the probability of detecting kids, conditional on presence, increased with terrain ruggedness ( p < 0.001). These results suggest that pooling observations across group types may obscure important habitat use patterns and caution is warranted when delineating habitat or managing activities such as hunting or aerial tourism.

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 score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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