MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135741156 · doi:10.2193/2006-559

Seasonal Habitat Associations of the Wolverine in Central Idaho

2007· article· en· W2135741156 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey P. Copeland, James M. Peek, Craig Groves, Wayne E. Melquist, Kevin S. McKelvey, Gregory W. McDaniel, Clinton D. Long, Charles E. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceIdaho Department of Fish and GameNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation
KeywordsHabitatPinus contortaAkaike information criterionEcologyElevation (ballistics)Environmental scienceGeographyWildlifePhysical geographyBiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Although understanding habitat relationships remains fundamental to guiding wildlife management, these basic prerequisites remain vague and largely unstudied for the wolverine. Currently, a study of wolverine ecology conducted in Montana, USA, in the 1970s is the sole source of information on habitat requirements of wolverines in the conterminous United States. The Montana study and studies conducted in Canada and Alaska report varying degrees of seasonal differences in wolverine habitat use. This article provides an empirical assessment of seasonal wolverine habitat use by 15 wolverines ( Gulo gulo ) radiotracked in central Idaho, USA, in 1992–1996. We controlled for radiotelemetry error by describing the probability of each location being in a habitat cover type, producing a vector of cover type probabilities suited for resource selection analysis within a logistic regression framework. We identified variables that were important to presence of wolverines based on their strength (significance) and consistency (variability in coeff. sign) across all possible logistic regression models containing 9 habitat cover types and 3 topographic variables. We selected seasonal habitat models that incorporated those variables that were strong and consistent, producing a subset of potential models. We then ranked the models in this subset based on Akaike's Information Criterion and goodness‐of‐fit. Wolverines used modestly higher elevations in summer versus winter, and they shifted use of cover types from whitebark pine ( Pinus albicaulis ) in summer to lower elevation Douglas fir ( Pseudotsuga menziezii ) and lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta ) communities in winter. Elevation explained use of habitat better than any other variable in both summer and winter. Grass and shrub habitats and slope also had explanatory power. Wolverines preferred northerly aspects, had no attraction to or avoidance of trails during summer, and avoided roads and ungulate winter range. These findings improve our understanding of wolverine presence by demonstrating the importance of high‐elevation subalpine habitats to central Idaho wolverines.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations63
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207