MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W292755374

Monitoring of moose-forest interactions in Estonia as a tool for game management decisions.

2003· article· en· W292755374 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jüri Tõnisson, Tiit Randveer

Bibliographic record

VenueAlces · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and biodiversity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForest managementPopulationGeographyEstonianEstimationBig gameEcologyForestryEnvironmental protectionBiologyDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews several big fluctuations in moose (Alces alces) numbers and related problems in Estonia during the last century. The biggest conflict appeared during the period 1960 - 1980, when the moose population achieved its highest density. The result of the overpopu- lation of moose was extensive forest damage. The establishment of a monitoring system and its acceptance by game management authorities at the beginning of the 1990s contributed to the improvement of the situation. The monitoring includes both the estimation of moose population parameters and estimation of moose influence on forest regeneration. Current moose numbers match the optimal population level outlined in the Estonian Environmental Strategy, approximately 10,000 animals, and forest damage has decreased. ALCES VOL. 39: 255-261 (2003)

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlcesSame topicEcology and biodiversity studiesFrench-language works237,207