MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2889738054

STATUS AND MANAGEMENT OF MOOSE IN THE PARKLAND AND GRASSLAND NATURAL REGIONS OF ALBERTA

2018· article· en· W2889738054 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ronald R. Bjorge, Delaney Anderson, Emily Herdman, Scott Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta Environment and Protected AreasRed Deer Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrasslandNatural (archaeology)GeographyEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryForestryEcologyBiologyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moose (Alces alces) naturally colonized the Parkland Natural Region of Alberta during the 1980s and early 1990s, and later colonized the Grassland Natural Region by the early 2000s. We summarize population data during 1996–2016 for these regions, examining density, population trends, productivity, distribution, management, and moose-human conflicts to determine population status and sustainability. Within the Parkland, aerial surveys from one frequently monitored Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) indicated a significant increase (R2 = 0.7476, P < 0.001) in density, representing an annual rate of change of 1.07. Pooled data from an additional 21 Parkland WMUs indicated a mean annual rate of change of 1.11. Mean density for the 22 Parkland WMUs over the study period was 0.19 ± 0.06 moose/km2, and aerial surveys indicated a mean of 74.4 ± 3.6 calves/100 cows and 51.9 ± 2.9 bulls/100 cows. Within the Grassland, winter aerial survey data from 4 WMUs indicated a mean density of 0.05 ± 0.01 moose/km2, and 72.5 ± 6.75 calves/100 cows and 108.8 ± 34.4 bulls/100 cows. Hunting in these regions has been managed with a limited entry hunt. Resident rifle hunting opportunity for moose in the Parkland and Grassland increased 4.2-fold between 1996 and 2015. Opportunity in this region also represented an increasing proportion of that available province-wide, from 3.4% in 1996 to 19.8% in 2015.

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 score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicRangeland and Wildlife Management→French-language works237,207→