MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604059299

Lessons from Wolf Restoration in The Northwestern U.S.

2016· article· en· W2604059299 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ed Bangs

Bibliographic record

VenueIntermountain journal of sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGray wolfPopulationCanisGeographyUngulateNational parkLivestockWildlife managementWildlifeEcologyHabitatArchaeologyForestryBiologyDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) populations were deliberately eliminated from nearly all of their historic range in the contiguous United States by 1930. Naturally dispersing wolves from Canada first denned in Montana in 1986. An intense period of scientific research, public outreach, and politics followed and resulted in wolves from western Canada being reintroduced to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming in 1995 and 1996. The population grew rapidly and at least 1,600 wolves now live in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and parts of eastern Oregon and Washington (NRM). The population has been biologically recovered since December 2003 when at least 663 wolves were present but removal of federal protections was delayed for several years. Packs now occupy mountainous forested habitat in over 130,000 square miles of the NRM. Wolf restoration resulted in both benefits (public viewing, harvest opportunities, funding by tag sales, and restoration of ecological processes) and costs (agency funding, livestock and pet depredation, and competition with big game hunters). Federal, state, and tribal cooperators used a wide variety of deterrents, relocated wolves 117 times, and killed over 2,268 to reduce livestock conflicts. Wolves contributed to reducing some wild ungulate populations and harvest by hunters. Starting in 2009, states began to implement public harvest programs to provide hunter/trapper opportunity, reduce conflict, and meet other objectives. Up to one third of the minimum wolf population was legally killed by humans and as intended, it has helped stabilize the population and reduced conflicts. The NRM wolf population is now being managed similarly to other resident wildlife by the affected States (except Wyoming where litigation caused wolves to remain listed) and Native American Tribes. While the NRM wolf population is biologically healthy, controversy continues as legal, policy, political, and human value issues continue to be debated symbolically through wolves. I discuss the history, science, and politics behind restoring wolves to the NRM and possible implications to future wolf restoration efforts.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntermountain journal of sciencesSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207