MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910254645 · doi:10.5962/p.363480

Gray Wolves, Canis lupus, of British Columbia's Central and North Coast: Distribution and Conservation Assessment

2002· article· en· W2910254645 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Chris T. Darimont, Paul C. Paquet

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsWorld Wildlife Fund CanadaUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsCanisGray wolfGray (unit)GeographySystemic lupus erythematosusArchaeologyEcologyBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Gray Wolves (Canis lupus) of coastal British Columbia are a remnant group of a much larger population that once inhabited most of North America, including its west coast temperate rainforests. During summers 2000 and 2001, we surveyed 36 islands and 42 mainland watersheds on British Columbia's Central and North Coast for the presence of wolves. An extensive survey had not been conducted previously. We observed wolf sign at all locations, including islands or island groups separated by approximately 7, 8, and 12-km from other large landmasses. The distribution of wolves on islands may be dynamic, with occupancy by solitary Wolves or packs being ephemeral. The potential for an island to support a persistent population of wolves may depend on the presence and abundance of their main prey, Black-tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and security from exploitation by humans. These factors likely are mediated by island isolation, area, shape, topography, and extent of logging. Mounting evidence suggests that logging negatively affects Wolves in temperate rainforests by reducing carrying capacity for deer.

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 score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations40
Published2002
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207