MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793065657 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v131i3.1825

Observations of Long-distance Post-release Dispersal by Reintroduced Bison (<i>Bison bison</i>)

2018· article· en· W2793065657 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Thomas S. Jung, Nicholas C. Larter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsYukon Department of Environment
FundersAlaska Department of Fish and GameParks CanadaMassachusetts Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsBison bisonBiological dispersalWildlifeGeographyEcologyPopulationWildlife refugeWildlife managementBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key objectives of wildlife reintroduction projects should include encouraging post-release site fidelity and high survival rates of founding individuals. Yet, few studies empirically evaluate these performance metrics for released individuals. Bison(Bison bison) restoration is receiving renewed interest by wildlife managers. To inform new bison reintroduction projects, we provide an observation of a 375-km (straight-line distance) post-release movement of three bison bulls from a release site in Yukon, Canada, in 1988. In addition, we note 250-km and 155-km post-release movements of bison in the Northwest Territories, Canada, in 1980 and 1998, respectively. These observations demonstrate the dispersal ability of bison encountering new environments. Wildlife managers planning for new bison reintroductions should consider means to enhance post-release site fidelity to limit long-distance dispersal and mortality and maximize initial population growth.

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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207