MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071218110 · doi:10.1139/z11-043

Demography of a harvested population of wolves (<i>Canis lupus</i>) in west-central Alberta, Canada

2011· article· en· W2071218110 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nathan Webb, John R. Allen, Evelyn H. Merrill

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsAlberta Environment and Protected AreasUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanisBiologyPopulationBiological dispersalDemographyEcologyRange (aeronautics)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wolves ( Canis lupus L., 1758) are subject to liberal public harvests throughout most of their range in North America, yet detailed information on populations where sport harvest is the primary source of mortality are limited. We studied a harvested wolf population in west-central Alberta from 2003 to 2008. Demographic data were collected from visits to den sites, 84 collared wolves from 19 packs, and a harvest monitoring program that augmented mandatory reporting for registered traplines. Annual harvest rate of wolves was 0.34, with harvest on registered traplines (0.22 ± 0.03) being twice that of hunters (0.12 ± 0.04). Most wolves harvested (71%) were pre-reproductive. Probability of a pack breeding was 0.83 ± 0.01, litter size averaged 5.6 ±1.4, and these rates and stability of home ranges were unaffected by the number of wolves harvested. Natural mortality (0.04 ± 0.03) and dispersal rates (0.25 ± 0.04) were lower than reported for wolf populations in protected areas. Reproductive rates balanced total wolf mortality, indicating harvest was likely sustainable. We suggest that a high proportion of juveniles harvested and the spatial structure of the registered trapline system contributed to the sustainability of harvests.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.169
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations54
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207