MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2295299338 · doi:10.14288/1.0095964

Relationships between coyote ecology and sheep management in the Lower Fraser Valley, B.C.

2010· article· en· W2295299338 on OpenAlexaff
Knut Thomas Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Domestic sheep farmers in the lower Fraser Valley (L.F.V.) had reported increasing losses of sheep to coyote (Canis latrans) and dog (C. familiaris) predation. The objectives of this study were: (1) to determine if management and geographic factors predispose sheep farms to coyote and dog predation; (2) to assess the relative impact of coyote and dog predation on the L.F.V. sheep population; (3) to record basic attributes of coyote biology (taxonomy, reproduction, food habits, home range, movements, activity patterns, and predatory behaviour); (4) to provide practical and economical recommendations to reduce or prevent coyote and dog predation on sheep in the L.F.V. One hundred and twelve sheep farmers were interviewed over three years, 1979 to 1981. Farms which lost sheep to coyotes characteristically had relatively large flocks (>50 ewes) on large fields (4+ ha), did not confine sheep at night, and either buried or left sheep carcasses exposed. There were no common factors among farms which lost sheep to dogs. Predation accounted for 28.2% of all mortality and 2.4% of the total population sampled. Coyotes killed 69.7% and 74.7% of all ewes and lambs lost to predators. An average of 24.3% of the farms lost sheep to coyotes and dogs each year. However, 55.2% of the farms which lost sheep to coyotes did so in two or three consecutive years compared to 17.4% of farms which lost sheep to dogs. Coyotes in the L.F.V. were similar in most biological aspects studied to other coyote populations in North America. The only exception was that small rodents, primarily Microtus townsendi composed over 70% (scat volume) of their diet, a proportion higher than in other areas. Domestic livestock (mostly poultry carrion) comprised only 4.3% of the diet, sheep only 0.2%. I concluded that in the rural-urban L.F.V. interface, prevention of coyote predation (and secondarily dog predation) on hobby farms is largely a matter of management. The most effective and economical solution is to provide predator-proof enclosures for night confinement of sheep because coyotes were most active at night. This method could be further enhanced by removing livestock carcasses off the farm or by burying and liming them to avoid attracting coyotes to the farm vicinity.

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 score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.251
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 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→