MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2980872401 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2019-0130

Factors affecting space use by wild boars (<i>Sus scrofa</i>) in high-elevation tropical forests

2019· article· en· W2980872401 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
T.A. Morais, Clarissa Rosa, Cristiano Schetini de Azevedo, Arleu Barbosa Viana‐Júnior, Pedro Santos, Marcelo Passamani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas GeraisUniversidade Federal de São João del-ReiCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsWild boarBiologyEcologyElevation (ballistics)PopulationPopulation densityZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wild boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758) is considered one of the 100 worst invasive species in the world and is present in the high-elevation forests in Brazil. Our objective was to understand how landscape and atmospheric conditions affect space use by wild boars. We hypothesized that wild boars would be more frequent at lower elevations, warmer and wetter forested areas, and away from human disturbances. After three years of data collection (2013–2016) using 16 camera traps, 881 independent records were obtained with a mean of 4.44 ± 9.25 pigs per record. Wild boar frequency of occurrence was higher at lower elevations, in more humid and warmer areas, and farther away human disturbance factors, corroborating our initial hypothesis. Understanding space-use patterns of wild boars is necessary for the design of management strategies that target areas of more intense usage, as well as for defining more effective population-control techniques.

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)0.001
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→