MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022230126 · doi:10.1080/19475683.2014.992366

A time geographic approach for delineating areas of sustained wildlife use

2015· article· en· W2022230126 on OpenAlexaff
Trisalyn Nelson, Jed Long, Karen Laberee, Benjamin Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of GIS · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildlifeUrsusGeographyHome rangeHabitatWildlife conservationWildlife managementGrizzly BearsRange (aeronautics)Environmental resource managementCartographyEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyPopulationEngineeringDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geographic information systems (GIS) are widely used for mapping wildlife movement patterns, and observed wildlife locations are surrogates for inferring on wildlife movement and habitat selection. We present a new approach to mapping areas where wildlife exhibit sustained use, which we term slow movement areas (SMAs). Nested within the habitat selection concepts of home range and core areas, SMAs are an additional approach to identifying areas important for wildlife. Our method for delineating SMAs is demonstrated on a grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) case study examining road density. Our results showed that subadult females had significantly higher road densities within SMAs than in their potential path area home ranges. The lowest road density was found in the SMAs of adult male grizzly bears. Given increased mortality risks associated with roads, female encampment near roads may have negative conservation implications. The methods presented in this manuscript compliment recent developments to identify movement suspension and intensively exploited areas defined from wildlife telemetry data. SMA delineation is sensitive to missing data and best applied to telemetry data collected with a consistent resolution.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of GISSame topicWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationFrench-language works237,207