POTENTIAL VULNERABILITY OF BULL MOOSE IN CENTRAL BRITISH COLUMBIA TO THREE ANTLER-BASED HUNTING REGULATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antlers from bull moose (Alces alces andersoni) harvested in the Omineca sub- region of central British Columbia were submitted by hunters for inspection, measurement, and comparison by age in 1982-1989. After correcting for non-reporting bias, we examined the potential vulnerability of these moose (n = 1,886) to 3 antler-based hunting regulations currently advertised in British Columbia: spike/fork (S/F), tripalm (TP), and 10 point (10PT). The S/F regulation put 15.9% of all bulls at risk, and the TP and 10PT regulations put 11.1% and 12.0% at risk, respectively. Bulls with cervicorn antlers were at higher risk (41.3%) to the S/F regulation than the TP (1.4%) or 10PT ( 7.5 years of age to harvest. Maximum spread and shaft circumferences of antlers were significantly smaller for yearlings at risk to the S/F regulation than for their same aged counterparts not at risk. Distance between the innermost points on the brow palm was significantly larger for yearlings at risk to the S/F regulation than for yearlings not at risk. Maximum spread, shaft circumference, palm height, and width were all significantly greater for bulls at risk to the TP and 10PT regulations than for those not at risk. Distance between the innermost points on the brow palms was significantly smaller for bulls at risk to TP and 10PT regulations than for those not at risk. These findings suggest that yearling bulls with smallest antlers are most at risk to harvest by the S/F regulation, whereas the largest antlered bulls are most at risk to harvest by the TP and 10 PT regulations. The consequences of this directed selection of bull moose by antler-based hunting regulations on the breeding biology, population genetics, and fitness of moose requires further study. ALCES VOL. 46: 113-121 (2010)
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".