MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1931187759 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v121i4.510

An Analysis of the Historical Records for the Native Mammalian Fauna of Prince Edward Island

2007· article· en· W1931187759 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Douglas G. Sobey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersUlster University
KeywordsWoodlandGeographyFaunaMartenPopulationBeaverEcologyWildlifeVulpesOtterArchaeologyPredationHabitatBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A search was carried out for historical records, both published and unpublished, that make reference to the native mammalian fauna of Prince Edward Island. Based on documents dating from 1721 to 1890, a comprehensive list of the records for the native mammals of the island has been compiled. Among the new information found is evidence for the presence of the Grey Wolf (as well as the Woodland Caribou) at the time of the first French settlement in 1720, and for the absence of the Beaver and Moose. Historical information has been assembled on the abundance and food-chain relationships of each of the mammalian species, as well as on their interactions with the European population, including the attitudes of the new settlers towards each species. The records indicate that seven of the mammals were extirpated: the Grey Wolf, American Black Bear, American Marten, River Otter, Canada Lynx, Atlantic Walrus and Woodland Caribou. All of these extirpations were due to the activities of the European population, with the attitudes of the settlers contributing to four of them: an indifference to the survival of the otter and Marten, and a direct hostility to the bear and lynx (due to their predation on livestock), leading to the payment of bounties.

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)0.002
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 score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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