Animal learning may contribute to both problems and solutions for wildlife–train collisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transportation infrastructure can cause an ecological trap if it attracts wildlife for foraging and travel opportunities, while increasing the risk of mortality from collisions. This situation occurs for a vulnerable population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in Banff National Park, Canada, where train strikes have become a leading cause of mortality. We explored this problem with analyses of rail-associated food attractants, habitat use of GPS-collared bears and patterns of past mortality. Bears appeared to be attracted to grain spilled from rail cars, enhanced growth of adjacent vegetation and train-killed ungulates with rail use that increased in spring and autumn, and in areas where trains slowed, topography was rugged, and human density was low. However, areas with higher grain deposits or greater use by bears did not predict sites of past mortality. The onset of reported train strikes occurred amid several other interacting changes in this landscape, including the cessation of lethal bear management, changes in the distribution and abundance of ungulates, increasing human use and new anthropogenic features. We posit that rapid learning by bears is critical to their persistence in this landscape and that this capacity might be enhanced to prevent train strikes in future with simple warning devices, such as the one we invented, that signal approaching trains. This article is part of the theme issue 'Linking behaviour to dynamics of populations and communities: application of novel approaches in behavioural ecology to conservation'.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".