MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wolf Depredation Trends and the Use of Fladry Barriers to Protect Livestock in Western North America

2003· article· en· W2104293414 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

VenueConservation Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsCanmore Museum and Geoscience CentreAlberta Conservation AssociationUniversity of Calgary
FundersSociety for Conservation Biology
KeywordsLivestockCanisGeographyPopulationPredationSocioeconomicsEnvironmental protectionBiologyEcologyForestryEnvironmental healthMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In Alberta, Canada (1982–2001), and in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, United States (1987–2001), wolves ( Canis lupus ) killed various domestic animals, among which the major prey were sheep in the United States (68%, n = 494 ) and cattle in Canada (95%; n = 1633 ). Under recovery programs, the wolf population increased in the United States, and depredation events increased proportionately. In both countries, the number of domestic animals killed each year was correlated with the number of wolves killed by government authorities for depredation management. We tested the ability of antiwolf barriers made of flags hanging from ropes to impede wolf access to food and livestock. In 18 experiments, barriers prevented captive wolves ( n = 9) from accessing food for up to 28 hours and allowed daily separation of wolves to administer contraceptive pills to a female wolf. Barriers prevented access by wild wolves to 100‐m 2 baited sites during two 60‐day tests. We also set barriers around three cattle pastures. In Alberta during two 60‐day trials on 25‐ha pastures, wolves approached barriers on 23 occasions but did not cross them, and no cattle were killed. Wolves killed cattle on neighboring ranches during the trials and before and after the trials on the tested ranches. In Idaho four radiocollared wolves crossed barriers and killed cattle in a 400‐ha ranch after 61 days of barrier exposure. Our results suggest that antiwolf barriers are effective in deterring captive and wild wolves for >1 and ≥60 days, respectively, and that wild wolves switch to alternative livestock when excluded from one herd of livestock. Our depredation data indicate that protecting livestock from wolves reduces the necessity for killing wolves. Barriers could play a role among the limited set of preventive measures available and offer a cost‐effective mitigation tool for the problem of livestock depredation on a local scale.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.208 · 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