MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1918542818 · doi:10.1002/wsb.369

Cougar population status and range expansion in Alberta during 1991–2010

2013· article· en· W1918542818 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kyle H. Knopff, Nathan Webb, Mark S. Boyce

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Environment and Protected AreasGolder Associates (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaShell CanadaRocky Mountain Elk FoundationAlberta Conservation AssociationGrand Slam ClubFoundation for North American Wild Sheep
KeywordsPopulation declinePumaWildlifeGeographyRange (aeronautics)PopulationWildlife managementEcologyBiologyDemographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In Alberta, Canada, number of cougar ( Puma concolor ) mortalities caused by humans has increased rapidly over the past 2 decades. Management agencies sometimes use human‐caused mortalities as an index of cougar population trend, which would indicate an increasing cougar population in Alberta, but mortalities may be decoupled from cougar numbers. Some authors suggest that higher human‐caused cougar mortalities (primarily due to sport hunting) are causing cougar populations in North America to decline. We used the distribution of human‐caused cougar mortalities in Alberta to evaluate change in cougar populations during 1991–2010, a period over which human‐caused cougar mortality increased rapidly. We provide evidence that cougars have expanded their range in northern and eastern Alberta in tandem with increasing sport hunting and other sources of human‐caused mortality. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.183 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations34
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207