Determining factors affecting moose population change in British Columbia: an update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to declining moose numbers in central British Columbia (BC), the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations initiated a five-year (December 2013–March 2018) provincially coordinated, moose-research project. The primary research objective is to identify the causes and rates of cow moose mortality and examine factors that contributed to their increased vulnerability, with particular reference to the landscape-change hypothesis. Cow moose were instrumented with GPS (Global Positioning System) radio collars and monitored in five study areas that were selected based on their moose population trend and landscape conditions, particularly the degree of mountain pine beetle salvage logging and associated road building. Samples were collected during capture for health testing. Rapid-response, mortality-site investigations were the key technique to determining probable cause of death of the collared cows. As of April 19, 2016, 336 cow moose had been fitted with GPS collars. The majority of cow moose were in good body condition, had pregnancy rates within the normal range, and showed no indication of immediate disease or parasite concerns at the population level. During this study period, the status of radio-collared cow moose was: 243 active, 49 failed (i.e., either stopped collecting location data or slipped from moose), and 44 mortalities. Probable cause of death for the 44 mortalities was predation (20), hunting (9; licensed 1, unlicensed 8), apparent starvation (4), vehicle collision (1), natural (1), unknown natural (1), health-related (1), unknown health-related (4), and unknown (3). The combined annual survival rate of cow moose from all study areas was 92 ± 8% in 2013/14, 92 ± 5% in 2014/15 and 88 ± 4% in 2015/16 (to April 19, 2016) — all within the normal range for stable moose populations. Preliminary results determined predation was responsible for 45% of the collared moose mortalities. Health testing is pending on samples collected from these collared moose mortalities which may provide insight on body condition or pre-existing conditions that may have increased their vulnerability to predation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".