MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223968930 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.22229

Evaluating habitat selection models to predict critical habitat for mountain goats in northwest British Columbia

2022· article· en· W4223968930 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jesse Wolf, Kara M. MacAulay, Krystal D. Kriss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Forests
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUngulateWildlifeHabitatGeographyAerial surveyResource (disambiguation)Critical habitatPopulationEcologyRecreationSelection (genetic algorithm)Environmental sciencePhysical geographyCartographyEndangered speciesBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Anthropogenic activity imposes increasing pressure on wildlife populations globally; these pressures can affect habitat suitability and function, modify wildlife space use, and influence population viability. Native mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) populations can be negatively affected by anthropogenic disturbance and modify their space use in response to land development and recreational activity. From 2018 to 2020, we studied space use of mountain goats northeast of Smithers, British Columbia, Canada, an area that is subject to increasing anthropogenic development and yearlong recreational activities. We aimed to generate models that would improve our ability to identify habitat for mountain goats relative to existing survey data and established ungulate winter ranges. Using resource selection function (RSF) analyses generated from global positioning system (GPS) collar data, we identified influential habitat covariates and compared these covariates and RSF values to existing habitat models. Additionally, we compared the extent to which our models were congruent with existing resource selection probability functions, were congruent with aerial survey data, and overlapped existing ungulate winter ranges previously derived from predictive models inside and outside of the study area. Overall, our models noted higher RSF values among GPS data relative to aerial survey data for winter months, while results for summer habitats were comparable. In extending our RSFs outside of the study area and evaluating the overlap with ungulate winter ranges in adjacent areas, values were similar, albeit lower, as is expected given that the models were developed elsewhere. Ultimately, these models, combined with existing methods, improve the accuracy and reliability of identified, important areas of habitat for mountain goats. We recommend that the RSF models generated here be used in conjunction with aerial survey data and existing methods to delineate ungulate winter ranges for mountain goats in similar eco‐regions in British Columbia. The models developed here support existing methods that have been used to delineate or validate ungulate winter ranges for mountain goats in British Columbia and help facilitate mitigation measures to support the continued use of important winter habitat and significant landscape features that play a role in ensuring population viability and resilience through time.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207