MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096983774 · doi:10.1017/s0032247420000327

How children in northern Canada represent the wolverine through drawings

2020· article· en· W3096983774 on OpenAlexaffabout
Morgane Bonamy, Andrew Harbicht, Thora Martina Herrmann

Bibliographic record

VenuePolar Record · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnimal and Plant Science Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarnivoreGeographyEcologyIndigenousHabitatPerceptionPsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study explores the perception of wolverines, a carnivore in decline, by youths in northern Canada, the future generation of stakeholders. To accomplish this, we analysed 165 drawings from children and 22 interviews with Indigenous adults in the Northwest Territories and Quebec. Overall, children primarily drew wolverines in healthy environments, with only a minority depicting the wolverine’s environment negatively. All children demonstrated a basic understanding of the wolverine’s physical appearance and biology/ecology, with few differences in how the wolverine was depicted among the different research areas. Among interviewed adults, the ecological role played by wolverines was less prominent among the themes explored by Naskapi participants than was their role as a thief or pest, when contrasted to Dene participants. These results indicate that information about wolverine habitat or biology is still being acquired by children in areas where wolverines are extirpated, but that a lack of exposure to this species may negatively influence children’s understanding of its ecological role. These results suggest that informing the public about this carnivore’s ecological role may improve public support and, therefore, the likelihood of successful conservation programmes.

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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolar RecordSame topicAnimal and Plant Science EducationFrench-language works237,207