MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Restoration of Elk (<i>Cervus elaphus</i>) in Ontario, Canada: 1998–2005

2007· article· en· W2023119395 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueRestoration Ecology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsCambrian CollegeMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervus elaphusPredationGeographyProductivityWildlifeNational parkEcologyFisheryForestryBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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