The Restoration of Elk (<i>Cervus elaphus</i>) in Ontario, Canada: 1998–2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 1997, a plan to restore Elk (Cervus elaphus) to Ontario was approved by the provincial government. The objective of the Ontario elk restoration program, a multipartnered collaboration, was to restore a species that had been extirpated from the province during the 1800s. During 1998–2001, 460 elk were acquired from Elk Island National Park, Alberta, for release in four areas of Ontario. As greater than 90% of the elk were radio collared, monitoring provided detailed information on the dynamics of the four populations. Comprehensive research projects using graduate students were implemented to determine the environmental impact of releasing elk in Ontario. Those studies are in progress or have been completed and include the effect of wolf predation on restored elk, white‐tailed deer and elk resource overlap, the development of genetic profiles for elk, and solutions for elk/human conflicts. Mortality of the released elk averaged 41% (190/460) during 1998–2004 with annual mortality generally declining over time in each release area. The primary causes of elk mortality included wolf predation (25% of mortalities), illegal shooting (13%), stress‐related emaciation (13%) (partially due to the stress of relocation), bacterial infections (7%), and collisions with vehicles (6%). Productivity has been high in one of the release areas with 24–65% of the cows being observed with calves during late winter surveys. However, productivity has been low in two of the northern release areas due to a variety of factors including wolf predation. In some areas, dispersion of elk appeared to be related to the length of time animals were kept in pens prior to release. The precalving population estimate for Ontario in March 2004 was 375–440 elk. A comprehensive program review was conducted in 2003/2004 that included recommendations relating to the future management of elk in Ontario.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".