MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767348683 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.21381

Ecotypic variation in population dynamics of reintroduced bighorn sheep

2017· article· en· W2767348683 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vernon C. Bleich, Glen A. Sargeant, Brett P. Wiedmann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeFoundation for North American Wild Sheep
KeywordsOvis canadensisEcotypeBiologyPopulationEcologyBovidaeGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Selection of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) for translocation historically has been motivated by preservation of subspecific purity rather than by adaptation of source stocks to similar environments. Our objective was to estimate cause‐specific, annual, and age‐specific mortality of introduced bighorn sheep that originated at low elevations in southern British Columbia, Canada (BC ecotype), or in the Missouri River Breaks region of central Montana, USA (MT ecotype). In North Dakota, USA, mortality was similar and typically low for adult female bighorn sheep from Montana (0.09 ± 0.029 [SE]) and British Columbia (0.08 ± 0.017) during 2000–2016. Median life expectancy was 11 years for females that reached adulthood (2 yrs old); however, mortality accelerated with age and reached 86% by age 16. Mortalities resulted primarily from low rates of predation, disease, accidents, and unknown natural causes (<0.04 [upper 90% CI]). Similar survival rates of female bighorn sheep from female bighorn sheep from British Columbia and Montana, coupled with greater recruitment of bighorn sheep from Montana, resulted in a greater projected rate of increase for the MT ecotype (λ = 1.21) than for the BC ecotype (1.02), and a more youthful age structure. These results support translocation of bighorn sheep from areas that are environmentally similar to areas that will be stocked. Potential benefits include more rapid population growth, greater resilience to and more rapid recovery from density‐independent losses, an increased possibility that rapidly growing populations will expand into adjacent habitat, increased hunter opportunity, increased connectivity among herds, and a more complete restoration of ecosystem processes. © 2017 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207