MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802117134 · doi:10.1111/jbi.13240

Modelling broad‐scale wolverine occupancy in a remote boreal region using multi‐year aerial survey data

2018· article· en· W2802117134 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Justina C. Ray, Lucy G. Poley, Audrey J. Magoun, Cheryl‐Lesley B. Chetkiewicz, F. Meg Southee, F. Neil Dawson, Chris Chenier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biogeography · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryCochraneUniversity of CalgaryWildlife Conservation Society Canada
FundersW. Garfield Weston FoundationEnvironment CanadaMinistry of Natural ResourcesWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsOccupancyPhysical geographyGeographyCarnivoreEnvironmental scienceTaigaEcologyCartographyForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim We used data from aerial surveys of wolverine tracks collected in seven winters over a 10‐year period (2003–2012) within a 574,287 km 2 study area to evaluate the broad‐scale pattern of wolverine occurrence across a remote northern boreal forest region, identifying areas of high and low occupancy. Location Northern Ontario, Canada. Taxon Wolverine ( Gulo gulo Linnaeus, 1758). Methods We collected wolverine tracks and observations in 100‐km 2 hexagonal survey units, making a total of 6,664 visits to 3,039 units, visiting each 1–9 times. We used hierarchical Bayesian occupancy modelling to model wolverine occurrence, and included covariates with the potential to affect detection and/or occupancy probability of wolverines. Results we detected wolverines on 946 visits, 14.2% of total visits. Probability of detecting a wolverine varied among years and between the two ecozones in the study area. Wolverine occupancy was negatively related to two important covariates, the geographical coordinate Easting and thawing degree‐days. A site occupancy probability map indicated that wolverine occupancy probabilities were highest, and standard error lowest, in the western and northern portions of the study area. Main conclusions The occupancy framework enabled us to use observation data from tracks of this elusive, wide‐ranging carnivore over a vast, remote area while explicitly considering detectability and spatial autocorrelation, yielding a map of probable wolverine distribution in northern Ontario that would not be possible using other methods of detection across a large region. With resource development pressures increasing in this globally significant region in the face of a changing climate, it is important to monitor changes in distribution of species like wolverines that have low population growth rates, large spatial requirements and sensitivity to human disturbance. This study demonstrates a relatively cost‐effective and non‐invasive alternative to monitoring based on wolverine harvest records, which have not been available since 2009 in Ontario due to changes in the provincial regulatory regime for this threatened species.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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