PREDATOR CONTROL, POLITICS, AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN ALASKA
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lethal control programs aimed at reducing wolf (Canis lupus) and bear (Ursus arctos and U. americanus) numbers while attempting to increase densities of moose (Alces alces) and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) for hunters have occurred intermittently in Alaska, USA, for the past 3 decades. These programs were accompanied by considerable controversy, much of it directed at methods of FRQWUROLQFOXGLQJKHOLFRSWHUVKRRWLQJE\�JRYHUQPHQWHPSOR\HHV�� VQDULQJ��DQG�o(HGZLQJDLUFUDIWVKRRW - ing by private citizens. From 1976 to 1983, 1,300 wolves were taken in several areas of Alaska by a combination of helicopter shooting and private trapping. Adverse public reaction largely restricted wolf control from 1984-1994 when a snaring program again produced controversy and that control program was terminated. In 1997, a National Research Council review suggested numerous biologi- cal standards for Alaska's predator control programs. The review strongly endorsed the approach of conducting predator control as adaptive management. Control proponents sponsored legislation in the 1990s that mandated intensive management of certain depleted populations of ungulates deemed important for consumptive use by humans. The primary management tool to increase such populations is predator control. Intensive management also required setting population and harvest objectives for ungulates. These objectives often were based on historical highs that are now likely unattainable and almost certainly unsustainable. Implementation of intensive management programs involving reduc- tions of black bears and brown bears as well as wolves has now been approved in 5 areas of Alaska totaling about 43,000 square miles with up to 610 wolves scheduled to be shot by April 2005. Approval of additional programs is pending. Controversy now is focused not merely on ethical objections to PHWKRGVRIFRQWURO��EXWH(WHQGVWREDVLFSULQFLSOHVRIZLOGOLIH �FRQVHUYDWLRQLQFOXGLQJVXVWDLQDELOLW\�RI� ungulate populations, protection of habitat integrity for ungulates, and population viability of preda- tors. Recommended biological standards and guidelines for justifying, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating control programs are not being applied
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it