SPATIAL RESPONSES OF WOLVES TO ROADS AND TRAILS IN MOUNTAIN VALLEYS
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing levels of human activity in mountainous areas have high potential to inhibit animal movement across and among valleys. We examined how wolves respond to roads, trails, and other developments. We recorded the movements of two wolf packs for two winters by following their tracks in the snow and simultaneously recording positions with a hand‐held global positioning system. We then used matched case‐controlled logistic regression to compare habitat covariates of wolf paths (cases) to multiple paired random locations (controls). This analysis emphasized the differences within pairs of cases and controls, rather than differences in their overall distribution, making it useful to assess fine‐scale habitat selection and path data. Both packs selected low elevations, shallow slopes, and southwest aspects. They selected areas within 25 m of roads, trails, and the railway line and more strongly selected low‐use roads and trails compared to high‐use roads and trails. One pack strongly avoided distances between 26 and 200 m of high‐use trails; otherwise, the wolves weakly selected or avoided this distance class. Both packs avoided areas of high road and trail density. We concluded that roads and trails have a cumulative effect on wolf movement and that management of trails, in addition to roads, may be needed to retain high‐quality habitat for wolves, particularly in known movement corridors.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 it