MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130970035 · doi:10.1898/1051-1733-96.2.107

Non-Invasive Survey of Forest Carnivores in the Northern Cascades of Oregon, USA

2015· article· en· W2130970035 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jamie E. McFadden‐Hiller, Tim L. Hiller

Bibliographic record

VenueNorthwestern Naturalist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanisMartenVulpesGeographyUrsusMustelidaeEcologyCarnivoreMinkForestryHabitatBiologyPredationPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several species of forest carnivores are of state or federal concern in Oregon and are or may be sensitive to timber management practices, wildfires, climate change, and other large-scale disturbances. We implemented a non-invasive survey of forest carnivores in the northern Cascades of Oregon during fall–spring, 2012–2014. We collected 111,148 images from 21 elevated and 39 ground-level baited camera stations located from 586 to 2237 m in elevation. We detected (≥1 image) Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) at 9 ground stations, of which 4 also detected Coyote (Canis latrans). We detected American Marten (Martes americana) at 63% of all stations (elevation range = 1252–2237 m), including 5 of 7 stations located in areas that experienced wildfires since 1996 that covered >5000 ha. Other forest carnivores detected included Bobcat (Lynx rufus), Black Bear (Ursus americanus), Mountain Lion (Puma concolor), Northern Raccoon (Procyon lotor), American Mink (Neovison vison), weasel (Mustela spp.), and skunk (Mephitis mephitis, Spilogale gracilis); but we did not detect Wolverine (Gulo gulo), Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis), Fisher (Martes pennanti), or Gray Wolf (Canis lupus). Future periodic non-invasive surveys of forest carnivores may provide information about changing species composition and distribution, especially in relation to climate change, vegetation succession, and potential recolonization by Gray Wolves.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorthwestern NaturalistSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207