The Challenges of Red Wolf Conservation and the Fate of an Endangered Species Recovery Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Endangered red wolves ( Canis rufus ) receive intense conservation efforts in the United States, and to date, population recovery has been challenged by hybridization with closely related coyotes ( C. latrans ) and illegal human‐caused mortality. Ongoing review of the red wolf program in the single recovery area in North Carolina prompted us to compare demography (survival, recruitment) and cause of death of red wolves and coyotes/hybrids. In most respects, canids had similar demographic rates, although sterilization was effective in controlling coyote reproduction. Comparison of previous (1999‐2007) to contemporary (2009‐2014) causes of death revealed that shooting mortality consistently accounted for ∼25% of wolf mortality. As evidenced by the lack of coyote deaths from strife with wolves, and stationary/declining wolf numbers during the last 15 years, current conditions are inadequate to establish a viable self‐sustaining wolf population. Accordingly, the program review should determine whether: (1) banning coyote hunting will sufficiently benefit wolf survival or recruitment; (2) the wolf population should be considered conservation‐reliant under revised recovery goals; or (3) the recovery program in North Carolina should be abandoned.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".