Factors influencing transboundary wildlife management in the North American ‘Crown of the Continent’
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jurisdictional boundaries and borders are rarely coincident with ecological systems. The long-term persistence of viable wildlife populations and habitats, especially for highly mobile and migratory species, is contingent upon effective management that transcends administrative boundaries. Although transboundary natural resource management has emerged as a topic of academic and professional discourse, implementation has been hampered by a host of barriers that include institutional, administrative, financial and contextual factors. The Crown Managers Partnership, a collaborative initiative of public land managers in the transboundary Rocky Mountains of Canada and the United States, is exploring the approaches to overcome these barriers. This paper reports on the results of interviews to identify the factors that influence the management of transboundary wildlife and provides a series of recommendations that are specific to the study area context, but are also transferable to other regions. Formalizing the existing partnership, exploring options for expanding participation in the partnership to include non-government interests, engaging third party facilitation, using non-traditional data sources, applying metapopulation ecology theory, and interdisciplinary problem solving are all elements recommended for improved transboundary management and of wildlife in the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it