MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2287706725 · doi:10.7939/r3252z

Relationships between grizzly bear source-sink habitats and prioritized biodiversity sites in Central British Columbia

2011· article· en· W2287706725 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott E. Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrizzly BearsUrsusHabitatGeographyBiodiversityEcologyPopulationBiotaBorealEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Central Interior and Sub-Boreal Interior ecoprovinces of British Columbia represent an important transitional population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos L.) occupying the area between two major mountain systems (Coastal Ranges and Central Rockies), as well as defining the boundary of extirpated range in the Fraser Plateau South. To assist ecoregional planning in the area, grizzly bear habitat models were produced for density, mortality risk, and source-sink habitat. Bear density was based on population estimates for each management unit and downscaling approaches using local habitat suitability rankings; mortality risk was modelled using 339 mortality locations from 2004 to 2007 and a suite of environmental and anthropogenic factors as predictors. Both models were combined to form a two-dimensional framework of habitat states representing source-like and sink-like habitats that help prioritize areas for protection and restoration (road decommissioning), respectively, as well as provide a basis for comparing with other biodiversity features. Irreplaceability values based on rare biota and unique habitats measured as the sum of runs in Marxan were significantly higher in grizzly bear source habitats than sink habitats suggesting that protection of grizzly bear source habitats would confer an umbrella or surrogate effect to other biodiversity. keywords: biodiversity; British Columbia; ecoregional planning; grizzly bears; habitat modelling; sourcesink habitats; Ursus arctos.

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)0.002
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.153
Teacher spread0.137 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207