MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235153372 · doi:10.1017/s1367943000001025

Dynamics of reintroduction in an indigenous large ungulate: the wood bison of northern Canada

2000· article· en· W4235153372 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicholas C. Larter, A. R. E. Sinclair, T. Ellsworth, John S. Nishi, C. Cormack Gates

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Conservation · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Northwest TerritoriesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUngulateBison bisonBiological dispersalRange (aeronautics)EcologyHerbivorePopulationIntraspecific competitionGeographyHome rangeCompetition (biology)BiologyIndigenousPopulation densityHabitatDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We document the recolonization of an indigenous large herbivore into its historic range. Eighteen wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) were reintroduced into the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary of the Northwest Territories, Canada, in 1963. The population subsequently increased in number and range, peaking at about 2400 in 1989; numbers were estimated at about 1900 in 1998. Recolonization occurred through a series of increases in local areas followed by pulses of dispersal and range expansion. This pattern was originally described for exotic species' introductions. Differences in diet and overwinter survival of calves over the bison's range suggest that intraspecific competition for food provided the stimulus for range expansion. For a conservation strategy, the reintroduction of animals into several independent sites in their historic range would facilitate recolonization and achieve a faster spread than a reintroduction into one site followed by waiting for the population to spread as a result of its own density dependent responses.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal ConservationSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207