Conservation and management of large carnivores in North America
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
Between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries in North America, large carnivores were significantly reduced in numbers and distribution. Wildlife management priorities changed during the last century to emphasize recovery and conservation with benefits to all species. Populations of large carnivores are likely to persist and expand into new areas within their original range where habitats are both socially and biologically suitable. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are an exception to this pattern as major contractions in numbers and distribution caused by global warming are now unavoidable. The extinction of polar bears during the twenty-first century is possible without great reductions in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Conservation and management of large carnivores is complicated because they require large landscapes, they may compete with hunters for ungulate prey, they can adversely impact economic activities such as livestock operations, and they sometimes, although rarely, attack and kill people.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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