MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304136226 · doi:10.1002/wsb.1369

Den supplementation for black bears in coastal British Columbia

2022· article· en· W4304136226 on OpenAlexaffabout
Helen Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsWorld Wildlife Fund Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrsusPopulation structurePopulationGeographySustainabilityNatural (archaeology)EcologyEnvironmental scienceArchaeologyBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract American black bears ( Ursus americanus ) require suitable den sites that provide security and cover to successfully survive the winter denning period. On Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, black bears prefer to use cavities associated with large‐diameter hollow trees or structures derived from trees (i.e., cavities in or under logs, root boles and stumps) as den sites. Extensive harvesting of coastal forests has reduced the availability of natural den structures such that their supply may affect population sustainability. I attempted to develop new methods to address the declining supply of denning opportunities by creating and testing new den structures constructed in trees, stumps and from plastic. Between 2014–2021, I created or deployed and monitored 17 potential den structures in 2 study areas that were believed to have low den supply. I documented up to 51 visits by bears at each structure; every one of the video‐monitored structures was investigated at least 5 times. None of the plastic artificial den structures were used by bears, but an enhanced natural structure was used as a den over 4 consecutive winters. My work indicates that bears will find and investigate all natural or artificial denning structures in their environment, but artificial structures do not appear to be a viable method to mitigate losses of dens caused by forest harvesting.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207