MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895783624 · doi:10.7717/peerj.5781

Estimating unrecorded human-caused mortalities of grizzly bears in the Flathead Valley, British Columbia, Canada

2018· article· en· W2895783624 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bruce N. McLellan, Garth Mowat, Clayton T. Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaOkanagan University CollegeMinistry of Forests
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrsusFlatheadGrizzly BearsGeographyHuman settlementOfficerHarassmentSocioeconomicsOccupancyFisheryEcologyDemographyArchaeologyBiologyPopulationMedicineFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Managing the number of grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) mortalities to a sustainable level is fundamental to bear conservation. All known grizzly bear deaths are recorded by management agencies but the number of human-caused grizzly bear deaths that are not recorded is generally unknown, causing considerable uncertainty in the total number of mortalities. Here, we compare the number of bears killed legally by hunters to the number killed by people for all other reasons, for bears wearing functioning radiocollars and for uncollared bears recorded in the British Columbia (BC) government mortality database for the Flathead Valley in southeast BC. Between 1980 and 2016, permitted hunters killed 10 collared bears and 12 (9 known, 3 suspected) were killed by people for other reasons. This ratio differed ( p < 0.0001) from the uncollared bears in the government database where 71 were killed by hunters while only 10 were killed for other reasons. We estimate that 88% (95% CI; 67–96%) of the human-caused mortalities that were not by permitted hunters were unreported. The study area may have low reporting rates because it is >40 km on a gravel road from a Conservation Officer office, so reporting is difficult and there are no human residences so there is little concern of a neighbor contacting an officer. Our results are likely indicative of other places that are road-accessed but far from settlements. We discuss the implications of sampling individuals for collaring and the possible implications of wearing a collar on the animal’s fate.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations39
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207