MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1498908387 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v127i1.1412

Age Structure of Moose (<em>Alces alces</em>) Killed by Gray Wolves (<em>Canis lupus</em>) in Northeastern Minnesota, 1967–2011

2013· article· en· W1498908387 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
L. David Mech

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsCanisGray wolfGray (unit)GeographySystemic lupus erythematosusAge structureZoologyBiologyEcologyDemographyPopulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ages of 77 adult Moose (Alces alces) killed by Gray Wolves (Canis lupus) during the period 1967–2011 in northeastern Minnesota were significantly older than those of a sample of 17,585 Moose killed by hunters in nearby Ontario. Our findings support those of earlier studies of protected Moose populations in national parks that found that Gray Wolves tend to kill disproportionately more older Moose.

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 score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→