MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4320066928 · doi:10.15788/ndot2018.2022

Modified jump-outs for white-tailed deer and mule deer

2022· report· en· W4320066928 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marcel P. Huijser, S.C. Getty

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIowa Department of TransportationOregon Department of TransportationNevada Department of TransportationArizona Department of TransportationNew Mexico Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationParks CanadaMontana Department of TransportationCalifornia Department of TransportationMinnesota Department of TransportationAlaska Department of Transportation and Public FacilitiesMichigan Department of TransportationU.S. Department of Transportation
KeywordsJumpFence (mathematics)SetbackJumpingLong jumpEnvironmental scienceEngineeringBiologyStructural engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The height of the jump-outs should be low enough for the target species to readily jump down to the safe side, or the habitat side, of the fence. At the same time, the jump-outs should be high enough to discourage animals that are on the habitat side of the fence from jumping up into the fenced road corridor. Previous research along US Hwy 93 North in Montana showed that only about 32% of the mule deer and about 7% of the white-tailed deer that appeared on top of the jump-outs, jumped down to safety. For this project, 10 of the jump-outs along US Hwy 93 North were lowered in height and provided with a bar on top. The height of the bars (made from rebar) and their setback from the vertical face of the jump-outs was adjustable and the researchers applied 4 different treatments: 2 different heights (18 and 15 inches) and 3 different setbacks (4, 12, and 15 inches). The overall effectiveness of the lowered jump-outs in allowing white-tailed deer to jump down, regardless of the height and setback of the bar, was only just above 5% (no improvement). For mule deer the effectiveness of the lowered jump-outs in allowing them to jump down, regardless of the height and setback of the bar, was about 64% (this was double the effectiveness of non-modified jump-outs).

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRangeland and Wildlife Management→French-language works237,207→