Lethbridge prairie rattlesnake conservation project : 2002/2003 progress report /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coulees of southwest Lethbridge are home to a population of prairie rattlesnakes {Crotalus viridis v.), estimated at fewer than 50 adults.High rates of mortality from road kills and human persecution, as well as a rapid loss of habitat from subdivision and recreational development, make the future of Lethbridge rattlesnakes uncertain.In May 2001, an artificial hibemaculum was constructed in secure parkland in Cottonwood Park.Problem and vulnerable rattlesnakes captured in urban areas were relocated and maintained there until their release during the spring of 2002.Passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags were implanted for long-term identification and monitoring, and transmitters were attached externally to the rattles of eight adult rattlesnakes prior to release.Subsequently, rattlesnake dispersal, movements, activities, and habitat use were monitored using radio telemetry.Technical and design problems with the radio transmitters prevented an accurate evaluation of the effectiveness of externally attached transmitters as a means of radio tracking prairie rattlesnakes.Data collected was used to test the assumption that if rattlesnakes successfully overwinter at the artificial facilities and if habitat features are suitable, they will adopt Cottonwood Park as their home range and return to the artificial den to hibernate during the fall of 2002.Results indicated that 3 of the 9 rattlesnakes released from the Cottonwood Park hibemaculum during the spring of 2002 returned to the enclosure in the fall; however, no assumptions can be made from these results because the fate of the other 6 rattlesnakes is unknown.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.036 |
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".