THE CO-EXISTING WITH COYOTES PROGRAM IN VANCOUVER, B.C.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When coyotes first arrived in Vancouver, BC they brought surprise, myths, and concern to the public as they grew comfortable in our city parks, golf courses, and neighborhoods. The Co-existing with Coyotes (CWC) program was created in 2001 and is based on the recommendations of a research project about public perceptions on urban coyotes. This program aims to reduce conflict between coyotes, pets, and people by providing information to both targeted and general audiences as well as providing a direct response to individual coyotes that are starting to, or are displaying, behavior of concern. The general public is reached through an information phone line, the distribution of brochures and posters, website resources, and permanent signs in parks and green spaces. Specific audiences are taught through the 'Coyotes 101' school program, interpretive walks, and presence at public events. Program staff coordinate with public agencies to locate, evaluate, and use non-lethal deterrents whenever possible with problem coyotes. The CWC program has begun its 7th year of operation and has played a key role in reducing conflict between people and coyotes in the greater Vancouver area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".