Distribution of female wolverines relative to snow cover, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Wolverines ( Gulo gulo ) in the contiguous United States have been considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act, most recently based on the value of deep snow for the duration of the wolverine's denning season. We examined evidence for an obligate relationship between wolverines and spring snow cover using camera traps and long‐term fur harvests in Alberta. The proportion of traplines that harvested ≥1 wolverine was highest in the northwest Boreal Forest (0.3), where mean wolverine harvest density increased by 75% from the 1990s to 2000s. There was no difference in percent spring snow cover on traplines with a female ( n = 81) or no female ( n = 416) wolverine harvest in the Boreal Forest. Further, all female wolverines ( n = 8) positively identified from camera traps in the Boreal Forest, including 5 lactating females, were located within townships predicted to have no spring snow cover. Long‐term harvests and evidence of reproduction in areas with low amounts of spring snow cover in the Boreal Forest of northern Alberta suggest that wolverines may be more flexible in their distribution than previously assumed. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".