MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2798259483 · doi:10.1002/wsb.869

Evaluating responses by pronghorn to fence modifications across the Northern Great Plains

2018· article· en· W2798259483 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paul F. Jones, Andrew F. Jakes, Daniel R. Eacker, Blair C. Seward, Mark Hebblewhite, B. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsAlberta Conservation Association
FundersAlberta Conservation AssociationNature ConservancyNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation
KeywordsFencingUngulateFence (mathematics)WildlifeGeographyWildlife managementEcologyHabitatBiologyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Pronghorn ( Antilocapra americana ) is an endemic North American ungulate susceptible to negative effects of fences, especially given the vast amount of barbed‐wire fencing currently on the landscape. Despite multiple nongovernmental organizations, and state and provincial wildlife agencies publishing guidelines for creating wildlife‐friendly fencing, there are no published studies that evaluate and compare evidence of the effectiveness of endorsed practices. We analyzed pronghorn crossing success in Alberta, Canada, and Montana, USA, between 2012 and 2016 in response to fence‐modification treatments to understand 1) differences between bottom wire height at selected versus available fence sites, 2) the change in crossing rates before and after fence modification treatments, 3) the effect of a suite of fence, environmental, and demographic characteristics on group crossing success, and 4) the time lag until pronghorn became habituated to different fence modifications after initiation of treatments. Use of either smooth wire or clips with a bottom wire height of approximately 46 cm were most effective at allowing passage by pronghorn, while the commonly proposed goat‐bar was ineffective and created a negative behavioral response by pronghorn. Though smooth wire and clips were effective at allowing passage, we observed a time lag as pronghorn switched use from their strong fidelity at known‐crossing sites to using modified sites. Pronghorn‐group crossing success was greatest during summer, for all‐male groups, and increased with larger group sizes. We advocate not using goat‐bars as modifications to fences, and instead, recommend using smooth wire and clips at a minimum bottom‐wire height of 46 cm to allow movement by pronghorn. Our study provides guidance for wildlife‐friendly fencing techniques to wildlife managers and private landholders as a means to improve permeability for pronghorn and additionally, can be used as a model to evaluate fence modifications for pronghorn and other target species that may be sensitive to fence interactions. © 2018 The Authors. Wildlife Society Bulletin Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.277 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations36
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207