MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1848694061 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v129i3.1728

Further evidence of Cougars (<em>Puma concolor</em>) in Ontario, Canada

2015· article· en· W1848694061 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Rick Rosatte, Lil Anderson, Doug Campbell, Christine Ouellet, B. N. White, Tasnova Khan, Paul Van Schyndel, Randy Pepper, C. Macdonald, Wil Wegman, Mike Allan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphTrent UniversityMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersRocky Mountain Research StationU.S. Forest ServiceTrent University
KeywordsPumaShot (pellet)CaptivityGeographyArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have indicated that Cougars (Puma concolor) were present on the Ontario landscape from 1935 to 2010. During 2012 and 2014, six pieces of evidence were collected that verified that Cougars were present in Ontario at that time. (1) A scat found near Collingwood, Ontario, was confirmed as containing Cougar DNA. (2) A Cougar was photographed by a member of the public near Pefferlaw, Ontario, and the photograph was proven to be authentic. (3) A Cougar was photographed near Kenora, Ontario. (4) A Cougar was observed near Kenora, Ontario, and tracks confirmed the sighting. (5) A Cougar attacked a dog near Bracebridge, Ontario; the animal was subsequently shot by police and DNA evidence indicated that it had at one time been in captivity. (6) A Cougar was photographed and later captured near Grafton, Ontario.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207