The recovery, distribution, and population dynamics of wolves on the Scandinavian peninsula, 1978-1998
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1966 the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was regarded as functionally extinct in Norway and Sweden (the Scandinavian peninsula). In 1978 the first confirmed reproduction on the peninsula in 14 years was recorded. During 20 successive winters, from 19781979 to 19971998, the status, distribution, and dynamics of the wolf population were monitored by snow-tracking as a cooperative SwedishNorwegian project. After the 1978 reproduction in northern Sweden, all new pairs and packs were located in south-central parts of the Scandinavian peninsula. Between 1983 and 1990 wolves reproduced each year except 1986, but in only one territory. There was no population growth during this period and the population never exceeded 10 animals. In 1991 reproduction was recorded in two territories. After that there were multiple reproductions each year and the population started growing. In 1998 there were 5072 wolves and six reproducing packs on the peninsula. Between 1991 and 1998 the annual growth rate was 1.29 ± 0.035 (mean ± SD). A minimum of 25 litters were born during the study period. The early-winter size of packs reproducing for the first time was 6.2 ± 1.4 wolves (n = 9), and this decreased with time during the study. The size of packs that had reproduced more than once was 6.4 ± 1.8 wolves (n = 12), and this increased with time over the study period. All but 1 of 30 reported wolf deaths were human-caused. The annual mortality rate was 0.13 ± 0.11, and this decreased with time during the study period. The minimum dispersal distance was 323 ± 212 km for males and 123 ± 67 km for females. Of 10 new wolf territories where breeding occurred, only 1 bordered other, existing territories. The distance from newly established wolf pairs to the nearest existing packs was 119 ± 73 km. Simulation of population growth based on known reproductions and mortalities showed a close similarity to the results from population censuses up to the mid-1990s. To what extent this population is genetically isolated is at present unclear.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".