MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536681555 · doi:10.1111/cobi.12075

Demographic Connectivity for Ursid Populations at Wildlife Crossing Structures in Banff National Park

2013· article· en· W1536681555 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael A. Sawaya, Anthony P. Clevenger, Steven T. Kalinowski

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrizzly BearsUrsusNational parkWildlifeGeographyForagingPopulationEcologyHabitatDemographyBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildlife crossing structures are one solution to mitigating the fragmentation of wildlife populations caused by roads, but their effectiveness in providing connectivity has only been superficially evaluated. Hundreds of grizzly (Ursus arctos) and black bear (Ursus americanus) passages through under and overpasses have been recorded in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. However, the ability of crossing structures to allow individual and population-level movements across road networks remains unknown. In April 2006, we initiated a 3-year investigation into whether crossing structures provide demographic connectivity for grizzly and black bears in Banff National Park. We collected hair with multiple noninvasive methods to obtain genetic samples from grizzly and black bears around the Bow Valley. Our objectives were to determine the number of male and female grizzly and black bears that use crossing structures; examine spatial and temporal patterns of crossings; and estimate the proportions of grizzly and black bear populations in the Bow Valley that use crossing structures. Fifteen grizzly (7 female, 8 male) and 17 black bears (8 female, 9 male) used wildlife crossing structures. The number of individuals detected at wildlife crossing structures was highly correlated with the number of passages in space and time. Grizzly bears used open crossing structures (e.g., overpasses) more often than constricted crossings (e.g., culverts). Peak use of crossing structures for both bear species occurred in July, when high rates of foraging activity coincide with mating season. We compared the number of bears that used crossings with estimates of population abundance from a related study and determined that substantial percentages of grizzly (15.0% in 2006, 19.8% in 2008) and black bear (17.6% in 2006, 11.0% in 2008) populations used crossing structures. On the basis of our results, we concluded wildlife crossing structures provide demographic connectivity for bear populations in Banff National Park.

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 score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations149
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationFrench-language works237,207