MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285825528 · doi:10.1080/11956860.2017.1292100

Road characteristics best predict the probability of vehicle collisions with a non-native ungulate

2017· article· en· W2285825528 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Amy L. Tanner, Shawn Leroux, Paul Saunders

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Newfoundland and LabradorMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of NewfoundlandResearch and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador
KeywordsUngulateGeographyEcologyEnvironmental scienceStatisticsBiologyMathematicsHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With roads encroaching into natural environments, there is an increased likelihood of wildlife coming into contact with vehicles, resulting in an increase in wildlife–vehicle collisions. Our goal was to investigate environmental correlates of moose–vehicle collisions (MVCs) on the island of Newfoundland, Canada. We developed predictive models to compare environmental variables at known MVC locations with environmental variables at random sites along the Newfoundland road network. The most supported generalized linear model explained ~36% of the variance in the probability of MVC occurrence. This top model predicted an increase in the probability of MVC occurrence: with decreasing distance to developed areas; on primary rather than secondary roads; on straight rather than curved roads; and in locations where roadside vegetation cutting has occurred. Our study highlights MVC predictors that are consistent with other wildlife–vehicle collision studies around the globe and which will serve as the basis for mitigation strategies on the island of Newfoundland with potential applications to other regions with high moose densities.

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)0.000
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationFrench-language works237,207