MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210453623 · doi:10.3390/f13020209

Analysis of Water Deer Roadkills Using Point Process Modeling in Chungcheongnamdo, South Korea

2022· article· en· W4210453623 on OpenAlexaff
Woongsoon Jang, Bongkyun Kim, Ok-Sik Chung, Jong Koo Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKorea Forest Service
KeywordsWildlifeGeographyElevation (ballistics)PopulationPoint (geometry)EcologyEnvironmental resource managementPhysical geographyForestryCartographyEnvironmental scienceDemographyEngineeringMathematicsBiologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expansion of road networks and increased traffic loads have resulted in an increase in the problem of wildlife roadkill, which has a serious impact on both human safety and the wildlife population. However, roadkill data are collected primarily from the incidental sighting, thus they often lack the true-absence information. This study aims to identify the factors associated with Korean water deer (Hydropotes inermis) roadkill in Korea using the point processing modeling (PPM) approach. Water deer roadkill point data were fitted with explanatory variables derived from forest cover type, topography, and human demography maps and an animal distribution survey. Water deer roadkill showed positive associations with road density, human population density, road width, and water deer detection point density. Slope and elevation showed negative associations with roadkill. The traffic volume and adjacent water deer population may be the major driving factors in roadkill events. The results also imply that the PPM can be a flexible tool for developing roadkill mitigation strategy, providing analytical advantages of roadkill data, such as clarification of model specification and interpretation, while avoiding issues derived from a lack of true-absence information.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationFrench-language works237,207