MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224231898 · doi:10.1163/14219980-20211109

Arboreal wildlife bridges in the tropical rainforest of Costa Rica’s Osa Peninsula

2022· article· en· W4224231898 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFolia Primatologica · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeijing Innovation Center for Future ChipMargot Marsh Biodiversity FoundationInternational Conservation Fund of CanadaGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsArboreal locomotionWildlifeHabitatPeninsulaRainforestGeographyEcologyBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Linear infrastructures, especially roads, affect the integrity of natural habitats worldwide. Roads act as a barrier to animal movement, cause mortality, decrease gene flow and increase the probability of local extinctions, particularly for arboreal species. Arboreal wildlife bridges increase connectivity of fragmented forests by allowing wildlife to safely traverse roads. However, the majority of studies about such infrastructure are from Australia, while information on lowland tropical rainforest systems in Meso and South America remains sparse. To better facilitate potential movement between forest areas for the arboreal wildlife community of Costa Rica’s Osa Peninsula, we installed and monitored the early use of 12 arboreal wildlife bridges of three different designs (single rope, double rope, and ladder bridges). We show that during the first 6 months of monitoring via camera traps, 7 of the 12 bridges were used, and all bridge designs experienced wildlife activity (mammals crossing and birds perching). A total of 5 mammal species crossing and 3 bird species perching were observed. In addition to preliminary results of wildlife usage, we also provide technical information on the bridge site selection process, bridge construction steps, installation time, and overall associated costs of each design. Finally, we highlight aspects to be tested in the future, including additional bridge designs, monitoring approaches, and the use of wildlife attractants.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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