MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FEMALE EASTERN WILD TURKEY MOVEMENT AND HABITAT USE IN THE PEMBINA VALLEY, MANITOBA

2015· article· en· W7084075648 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological dispersalHabitatHome rangeRange (aeronautics)Meleagris gallopavoSpring (device)PeninsulaLatitude

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris; hereafter, turkey) populations in southern Manitoba, Canada, have grown substantially since being introduced in the late 1950s, even though they are located well north of their native range. With a growing interest in turkey hunting across western Canada, and desires to expand the current population's distribution, there is a need to better understand movement and habitat used by turkeys in this novel environment. Therefore, we radiotagged 43 female turkeys from the Pembina Valley during 2011 and 2012 and collected baseline data on spring dispersal patterns, spring'summer home range size, and habitat use at 2 spatial scales. Spring dispersal occurred prior to 18 April during both years; distances averaged 8.2 km (95% CI = 6.4 to 10.1) for all individuals and were greater for juveniles (11.9 km, 95% CI = 8.4 to 15.4), than adults (6.4 km, 95% CI = 4.6 to 8.3). Spring'summer home ranges averaged 554.4 ha (95% CI = 427.0 to 681.9). At the study area scale, we selected forests, cattle feedlots, and grasslands (in decreasing order of preference) as habitat types. Within home ranges, females favored areas close to grasslands, forests, and intermittent streams during spring'summer. Our results suggest that turkeys at northern latitudes exhibit movements and habitat use consistent with other North American populations, confirming their adaptability and suggesting potential for further expansion within Canadian Prairies. We suggest that future releases in Manitoba and other northern jurisdictions use dispersal distances and home range land cover composition documented in this study as guidelines for selecting introduction sites and conducting prerelease consultations.

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 score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.412
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.087 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicArchaeological Research and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207