Response of Wolves to Experimental Disturbance at Homesites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Events during the denning period (parturition to first autumn) often determine the reproductive success of wolves ( Canis lupus ). Consequently, there is concern about the potential adverse effects of human‐caused disturbance at wolf den and rendezvous sites (homesites), but relatively little information on this subject is available. We conducted standardized experimental disturbance treatments at 12 unique wolf homesites in the Northwest Territories, Canada, during summers 2002 and 2003. The treatment consisted of an intruder approaching a homesite once per day for 3 consecutive days and recording behavioral responses, response distance, and response intensity of wolves. We counted pups and estimated their ages prior to the initial treatment at each site. Adult wolves moved pups at 3 of 6 treated homesites in each year. The amount and type of known human activity within a pack's home range did not influence whether adults moved pups in response to the treatment. The response intensity of wolves to the treatment was inversely related to the amount of human activity near a homesite. There was no relationship between the distance at which wolves responded to the intruder and the amount or type of human activity. There was a positive relationship between increasing age of pups and their relocation in response to the treatment. Reproductive success was not influenced by the treatment or by the amount and type of human activity. Treated sites were used by wolves the following year in the same proportion as untreated sites. It appears that pups are most vulnerable early in the year when less mobile; therefore, managers should consider age of pups before human activity at or near wolf homesites occurs.
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 | 0.002 | 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 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".