Raccoons' intrusion into urban dwellings: GIS application on urban wildlife study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The history of raccoons entering urban life of human can go back to the beginning of the 20th century (Lariviere, 2004; Bateman & Fleming, 2012). While some people see this animals as rewarding wilderness encounter, others may considers them as threatening safety concerns. (Clark, 1994) Indeed, the discussion around these highly adaptive creatures living in the cities has been going on for decades. A study in Texas, US shows that since 1980s, raccoons have been recognized as the second largest cause of complaints regarding human-wildlife conflict, after rats and mice (Chamberlain et al., 1981). Raccoons are rabies-vector mammals, and also carry at least 13 other pathogens which are potential threats to human’s health (Lotze & Anderson, 1979; Wolch, 1995; Bateman & Fleming, 2012). Furthermore, there are evidences showing that driving by anthropogenic food sources and shelter, raccoons not only wander in the yards and raid garbage cans, but also settle down in houses as their den sites (Bateman & Fleming, 2012; Prange et al., 2003). They invaded through anywhere they could fit, such as roofs, chimneys, vents and even underneath the porches (Wolch et al., 1995; Clark, 1994). The facts that raccoons carry diseases around and cause destruction to the buildings brought urban residents to professional wildlife management organizations for help. \n \nOn the other hand, the encounter of raccoons to urban people seems unavoidable. Raccoons living in the urban cities are considered to have better physical conditions and therefore higher survival rates, compared to their rural neighbours (Prange et al., 2003; Bateman & Fleming, 2012). Their major predators in the cities are cars, which is the number one cause of death according to Bateman and Fleming’s investigation (2012). Some scholars believe that raccoons tend to avoid roads and build-up areas (Bateman & Fleming, 2012), while other researchers, such as Ditchkoff and her colleagues (2006), suggested that raccoons forage on road-killed animals, which indicates their presence alongside the roads. Overall as natural creatures, raccoons have favor in parks and green spaces in the cities (Bateman & Fleming, 2012). It is worthy to notice that in many new suburban areas, larger areas with trees and other vegetation are preserved to separate the houses, which provides perfect wildlife habitats (travel, forage, cover etc.) for the animals (Ditchkoff et al., 2006). \n \nThis paper investigates the spatial pattern of raccoons’ intrusion to dwellings in Toronto, Canada, in terms of which part of house they were found. Raccoons are highly adaptive mammals living in the urban settings, therefore it is possible to assume that the animals living nearby or having overlapped home range may learn from each other, which may be reflected by their den choices. A spatial illustration could help us learn more about raccoons’ behavior and adaptation to new environment, which is important to urban wildlife management practices.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».