Wolf habitat selection in relation to recreational structures in a national park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although most predators usually avoid human activity, some individuals instead will habituate to it. Habituation to human presence and infrastructure by predator species such as wolves may lead to conflicts implicating serious risks for public safety and for the survival of the animals involved. Accordingly, this research project aims to shed light on the relationship between wolves and recreational structures using telemetry data from 10 wolves located in the Parc National du Mont-Tremblant (Québec, Canada) and its surrounding area. Using resource selection functions (RSFs), we observed wolf habitat selection in relation to these structures during three biological periods (denning: May–June; rendezvous: June–October; and nomadic: October–April). Our results revealed that wolves selected proximity to linear structures (roads and trails) during the denning and rendezvous periods, but this selection depended on the density of such structures in the surroundings (i.e., functional response in habitat selection): wolves selected proximity to linear structures when these structures were present at greater densities. Wolves avoided housing structures (campsites, cabins, park facilities), especially when these structures were present at greater densities, suggesting that wolves perceived them as a risk. These results suggest that conflicts between visitors and wolves were unlikely to occur in campgrounds during the time of our study. This could indicate that the management measures implemented by the park following the past episodes of conflict were effective. However, wolves’ use of linear structures could lead to increased tolerance to human proximity if left unmanaged.
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) | 0.001 | 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".