MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158745010 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.565

Do mountain goats habituate to helicopter disturbance?

2013· article· en· W2158745010 on OpenAlexafffund
Steeve D. Côté, Sandra Hamel, Antoine St‐Louis, Julien Mainguy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCenter for Northern Studies
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)GeographyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Helicopter flights may affect wildlife, but habituation to disturbance is possible. We tested the hypothesis that mountain goats in a population exposed to helicopter flights for over 40 years have habituated to helicopter traffic. We contrasted behavioral responses of marked mountain goats to helicopter flights during 2 time periods (1995 vs. 2005–2009). The proportions of helicopter flights resulting in no/light, moderate, or strong disturbance were similar in 1995 and 2005–2009. Horizontal distance was the main factor determining mountain goat responses to helicopter flights; goats had a very high probability (>0.8) of being moderately and strongly disturbed (moderate: moved 10–100 m, alert for 2–10 min; strong: ran >100 m, alert for >10 min) when they were approached within 500 m by helicopters. We found that mountain goats only very slightly habituated to helicopter flights during a period of 10–15 years of repeated helicopter traffic. Because disturbance from helicopter flights has remained high, and in view of the continuous increase of helicopter traffic in mountainous habitat, we recommend helicopter flights do not approach closer than 1,500 m from mountain goat groups. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations33
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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