Historical distributions of bobcats (<i>Lynx</i> <i>rufus</i>) and Canada lynx (<i>Lynx</i> <i>canadensis</i>) suggest no range shifts in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species across the planet are shifting their ranges in response to climate change and habitat loss. However, range shifts may vary, with populations moving in some areas but remaining stable in others; the conditions that encourage range stability rather than range shifts are poorly known. Bobcats (Lynx rufus (Schreber, 1777)) and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis Kerr, 1792) are congeneric mesocarnivores with wide ranges across North America and range overlap in southern boreal and montane forests (the southern edge for lynx and the northern edge for bobcat). The ranges of both species are shifting in some parts of North America, in most cases resulting in a northward expansion for bobcats and a northward contraction for lynx. However, their range dynamics in the Pacific Northwest, which contains the northwestern range margin for bobcats and the southwestern range margin for lynx, have not been thoroughly documented. Here, we examine whether the range of each species has shifted in British Columbia (BC), Canada, provincially during 1983–2013 or in central BC during 1935–2013. Trapping records indicated that ranges have remained stable, and surveys from trappers supported these findings. Our findings are consistent with previous work showing that many wide-ranging species do not shift their range uniformly across their entire range edge. For bobcats and lynx, their range stability in BC contrasts with their range dynamics in other parts of North America.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".