MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MOVEMENT PATTERNS OF BARREN-GROUND WOLVES IN THE CENTRAL CANADIAN ARCTIC

2001· article· en· W2173572390 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lyle R. Walton, H. Dean Cluff, Paul C. Paquet, Malcolm A. Ramsay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Northwest TerritoriesUniversity of SaskatchewanMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsCanisTundraGeographyRange (aeronautics)ArcticHome rangeEcologyPhysical geographyArctic foxHabitatBiologyLagopus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We collected information on the movement patterns of wolves (Canis lupus) captured within a 30,000-km2 area in the Northwest Territories and western Nunavut. Currently, diamond mining and road construction are occurring in the area used by these migratory wolves for denning. During summers of 1997 and 1998, 23 wolves in 19 different packs were captured and fitted with collar-mounted satellite transmitters. Areas used by these wolves varied seasonally and seemed to correspond to movements of migratory caribou (Rangifer tarandus). Annual home-range sizes (95% minimum convex polygon), averaged 63,058 km2 ± 12,836 SE for males and 44,936 ± 7,564 km2 for females. Wolves began to restrict movements around a den site on the tundra by late April. They did not depart from their summer ranges until late October, after which they followed caribou to their wintering grounds. Straight-line distances from the most distant location on the winter range to the den site averaged 508 ± 26 km during 1997–1998 and 265 ± 15 km in 1998–1999 (P < 0.01). Home range in summer averaged 2,022 ± 659 km2 for males and 1,130 ± 251 km2 for females. No difference was detected between sexes or years. All but 2 of 15 wolves returned to <25 km of a previous den, and 2 wolves returned to the same den site. We believe that human activities that disturb or displace denning wolves, or that alter the distribution or timing of caribou movements, will have negative affects on reproductive success of 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 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations99
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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