Unexpectedly High Detections of Wolverine (<i>Gulo gulo</i>) in Southwestern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted an inventory of Wolverines (Gulo gulo) in southwestern British Columbia in winter 2012, using a multi-method approach of non-invasive genetic tagging and camera trapping. We detected a minimum of 4 females and 2 males at 5 hair-snag stations within an area of approximately 225 km2, which exceeded expectations based on predictions of low habitat quality and density from a broad-scale provincial model. Results were consistent with known adult intrasexual spacing patterns, suggesting that individuals were unlikely to represent members of a family group; however, overlap of territories could be a possible explanation of our results given the presence of potentially high-quality habitat features in our study area. Another possibility is that Wolverine density is higher in this part of the province than predicted by the model, potentially due to differences in food supply and key landscape features between this area and the areas where the model was developed. Further research is recommended to allow us to distinguish among competing hypotheses and fill data gaps on Wolverine ecology in this poorly studied coastal-transitional mountainous ecosystem.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".