MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116460429

Northeastern Minnesota moose management - a case study in cooperation.

2004· article· en· W2116460429 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew J. Edwards, Mike Schrage, Mark S. Lenarz

Bibliographic record

VenueAlces · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlement (finance)GeographyTreatyPopulationState (computer science)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceEcologyBusinessDemographyBiologySociologyLawEconomicsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides an overview of moose management in northeastern Minnesota with an emphasis on relationships between the State and Tribal entities that share management responsibility. Specific topics discussed include settlement of treaty rights issues, harvest allocation and strategies, and the evolving State-Tribal partnerships that have been created during the past 15 years. Brief updates on the status of moose in Minnesota, population monitoring efforts, population goals, and the future direction of management are provided. ALCES VOL. 40: 23-31 (2004)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlcesSame topicArchaeology and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207