MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Elk Restoration in Ontario, Canada

2002· article· en· W2003451806 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. Rosatte, J. Hamr, B. RANTA, J.A. Young, Normand L. Cool

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaCambrian CollegeMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic wasting diseaseEmaciationNational parkCervus elaphusGeographyTuberculosisPopulationMedicinePredationDemographyVeterinary medicineEnvironmental healthDiseaseEcologyBiologyArchaeologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario has embarked upon a program to restore elk (Cervus elaphus) that were once native to that province. A comprehensive disease-management strategy has ensured that elk are free of infectious diseases such as brucellosis and tuberculosis prior to shipment to Ontario. Postmortem analysis occurs on elk mortalities in Ontario to ensure that elk are not infected with diseases such as chronic wasting disease and tuberculosis. Between 1998 and 2001, a total of 443 elk were transported from Elk Island National Park, Alberta, and released in four different areas of Ontario. Cumulative mortality for elk in all areas was 26% from 1998 to January 2001. The primary causes of mortality were post-release stress-induced emaciation (21%), wolf predation (20%), transport/handling injuries (10%), bacterial infections (10%), and drowning (7%). Female calves had the highest mortality rates (37%) compared to the other sex and age cohorts (23-24%). Preliminary findings suggest an inverse correlation between the length of time elk are held in enclosures prior to release and the distance they disperse from the release site. The 2001 estimated population of elk in Ontario is about 400 individuals.

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 score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations19
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→