Incorporating local ecological knowledge to explore wolverine distribution in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Wolverines ( Gulo gulo ) occur at low densities in remote areas that are typically difficult to access, which has resulted in a lack of baseline data and uncertain status across parts of their range. We surveyed trappers in 2012 to gather information on local ecological knowledge of wolverine occurrence across a range of latitudes (49–59°N) in Alberta, Canada. We received questionnaires from 164 trapping areas in the Boreal Forest, Foothills, and Rocky Mountains. Similar to results from other methods of data collection, trapper observations of wolverines were associated with cooler climates and less anthropogenic disturbance. When we included data from all regions, the best model that explained recent wolverine observations included percent intact forest within the surrounding area. The odds ratio suggested that each increase of 1% in the amount of intact forest increased the odds of a trapper observing wolverine sign by 4%. In the Boreal Forest, the top model indicated that wolverines were more likely to be found in areas that had a cooler climate and more intact forest. Insights from trappers provided valuable baseline data on a sensitive species that is complementary to other research findings, and stimulated hypotheses that wolverines are linked to cooler climates and less disturbed environments. © 2019 Alberta Conservation Association. Wildlife Society Bulletin Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc on behalf of The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".