MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234864444 · doi:10.4324/9781315766355-41

Chapetr 29: Bear down: resilience and multispecies ethology

2017· book-chapter· en· W4234864444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcosystem dynamics and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthologyResilience (materials science)PsychologyEcologyBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the morning of July 30, 2015, a black bear was discovered dead on a driveway at the north end of Sudbury, a city of 150,000 humans in northeastern Ontario, Canada. When officers from the Greater Sudbury Police, along with an official from the province’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), appeared on the scene, they discovered that the bear had died from a bullet wound. It had been killed. According to one report, the bear’s death was a “vigilante killing” by a city resident who took matters into his or her own hands (Moodie, “Vigilante”). The “vigilante” label stems from the fact that Sudbury-though located in the heart of Ontario’s black bear country-was experiencing an unprecedented rate of bear sightings and “nuisance” behavior within city limits, and a proportion of the general public, though divided on the reasons behind recent bear behavior, blamed their unusually high presence on a lack of management and protection by qualified officials.1 Even though there were no visible signs or reports of threatening behavior by the bear, it was nevertheless shot and left to die in what the police called an “inhumane” manner.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.006

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEcosystem dynamics and resilienceFrench-language works237,207