MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988701419 · doi:10.1080/1088937x.2019.1685020

‘I think it is the toughest animal in the North’: human-wolverine interactions among hunters and trappers in the Canadian Northwest Territories

2019· article· en· W2988701419 on OpenAlexaffabout
Morgane Bonamy, Thora Martina Herrmann, Andrew Harbicht

Bibliographic record

VenuePolar Geography · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarnivoreGeographyPopulationEcologyEndangered speciesHabitatDemographyBiologyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wolverine (Gulo gulo), a carnivore species of ‘Special Concern’ for its western population and ‘Endangered’ for its eastern population, is of special management concern in Canada. Hence understanding human-wolverine relationships and human perceptions toward this carnivore species has become important. Moreover, wolverines are harvested for fur in northern Canada, thus hunters and trappers who live in the vicinity with this species are key stakeholders. Using semi-structured interviews and questionnaires we analysed human-wolverine interactions and perceptions among Dene and Métis hunters and trappers in the Canadian Northwest Territories. We found that hunters and trappers had comprehensive knowledge about wolverine ecology and behavior. Values associated with this species ranged from respect for their tenacious character and strength, to describing the wolverine as a trickster. Stories emphasizing the wolverines’ mischievous nature were also common. Dene and Métis hunters and trappers acknowledge the importance of the wolverine in the socio-ecological system and have observed the cumulative impacts that climate and human-induced landscape change have had on wolverine habitat and population dynamics. Listening to hunters and trappers is one path towards more insightful management options in situations involving conflicts with wolverines.

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 score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolar GeographySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207