Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We have reviewed Swedish forestry and hunting literature in order to investigate how the management of moose (Alces alces) in Sweden has changed during the 20th century, especially after the re-establishment of the wolf (Canis lupus) in the 1980s. The focus is on the perspective of moose hunters and of the forest industry since these are the two main factors in control of the size of the Swedish moose population. At about the same time as the Swedish moose population was reaching its all time high, there were reports that wolves were being spotted again in the country. Up to the first half of the 19th century, wolves were relatively abundant in Sweden. However, intense hunting led to their drastic decrease, so that in the beginning of the last century only a small number remained. As a result of being virtually extinct, the wolf was thus declared protected in 1965. Currently, the Scandinavian (i.e., the Swedish and Norwegian) wolf population has grown to a size of about 100 individuals. This might not sound like much in a relatively large country like Sweden but in areas where hunters already have had their culling ratio for moose decreased by the forest companies to minimize forest damage, the establishment of a single wolf pack has proven to be 'the final straw.' Thus, there are instances where hunters have gone on 'strike'; i.e., refusing to search for animals injured in traffic, as protest to this state of affairs. There are few instances (to our knowledge) where the forest companies have shown any increased interest in the 'wolf issue', which might be understandable from a commercial point of view but disastrous when it comes to their relationship with the hunters. We suggest that moose management in areas with wolves should be controlled by special regulations, taking both local and national interests into account and where ownership of the hunting ground should not be the sole consideration.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 découle