Peer Review #4 of "Estimating unrecorded human-caused mortalities of grizzly bears in the Flathead Valley, British Columbia, Canada (v0.3)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managing the number of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) mortalities to a sustainable level is fundamental to bear conservation.All known grizzly bear deaths are recorded by management agencies but the number of human-caused grizzly bear deaths that are not recorded is generally unknown, causing considerable uncertainty in the total number of mortalities.Here we compare the number of bears killed legally by hunters to the number killed by people for all other reasons, for bears wearing functioning radiocollars and for uncollared bears recorded in the British Columbia government mortality database for the Flathead Valley in southeast BC.Between 1980 and 2016, permitted hunters killed 10 collared bears and 12 (9 known, 3 suspected) were killed by people for other reasons.This ratio differed (p < 0.0001) from the uncollared bears in the government database where 71 were killed by hunters while only 10 were killed for other reasons.We estimate that 88% (95% CI; 67%-96%) of the human-caused mortalities that were not by permitted hunters were unreported.The study area may have low reporting rates because it is >40 km on a gravel road from a Conservation Officer office, so reporting is difficult and there are no human residences so there is little concern of a neighbor contacting an officer.Our results are likely indicative of other places that are road-accessed but far from settlements.We discuss the implications of sampling individuals for collaring and the possible implications of wearing a collar on the animal's fate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".