MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3212562312 · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-01936-6

Direct and indirect effects of roads on space use by jaguars in Brazil

2021· article· en· W3212562312 on OpenAlexaff
Rafaela Cobuci Cerqueira, Óscar Rodríguez de Rivera, Jochen A.G. Jaeger, Clara Grilo

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino SuperiorConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsUrban sprawlJaguarGeographyWildlifeFencingDeforestation (computer science)Land useHabitatLand coverEcologyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Roads pose an imminent threat to wildlife directly through mortality and changes in individual behavior, and also indirectly through modification of the amount and configuration of wildlife habitat. However, few studies have addressed how these mechanisms interact to determine species response to roads. We used structural equation modeling to assess direct and indirect effects (via landscape modification) of roads on space use by jaguars in Brazil, using radio-tracking data available from the literature. We fit path models that directly link jaguars' space use to roads and to land cover, and indirectly link jaguars' space use to roads through the same land cover categories. Our findings show that space use by jaguars was not directly affected by roads, but indirect effects occurred through reductions in natural areas on which jaguars depend, and through urban sprawl. Males´ space use, however, was not negatively influenced by urban areas. Since jaguars seem to ignore roads, mitigation should be directed to road fencing and promoting safe crossings. We argue that planners and managers need to much more seriously take into account the deforestation and the unbridled urban expansion from roads to ensure jaguar conservation in Brazil.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→