MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385662375 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.4636

Whose line is it anyway? Moose (<i>Alces alces</i>) response to linear features

2023· article· en· W4385662375 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Laura Finnegan, Mark Hebblewhite, Karine E. Pigeon

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersForest Resource Improvement Association of AlbertafRI Research
KeywordsWoodland caribouWildlifeTaigaThreatened speciesHabitatWoodlandEcologyVegetation (pathology)BorealPopulationGeographyEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Linear features are pervasive across the boreal forest of Canada, negatively impacting several wildlife species. Understanding how wildlife responds to different types and characteristics of linear features is necessary for coordinated landscape restoration. Currently, linear feature restoration is focused on recovering threatened woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) which may have unintended impacts on other boreal species like moose ( Alces alces ). Understanding how moose respond to different linear features can help ensure restoration is targeted and effective. We used GPS data from seven moose collected between 2008 and 2010 to investigate response to linear features and to determine how moose response was influenced by characteristics of linear features like the surrounding habitat and regeneration. At the landscape scale, moose selected areas closer to seismic lines when they were in areas with lower densities of seismic lines and higher densities of harvest blocks and wildfires. This response was stronger during winter. Moose selected areas closer to pipelines when they were in areas with lower densities of other linear features, harvest blocks, and wildfires and were indifferent to roads at the population‐level. At the fine scale, during winter, moose selected areas closer to seismic lines regardless of vegetation height or the surrounding habitat, but were indifferent to seismic lines during summer, and were indifferent to roads and pipelines during summer and winter. Combined, our results suggest that there are characteristics of seismic lines which make them attractive to moose regardless of the regeneration height on the seismic lines, providing further evidence that effective linear feature restoration will need to address the fact that linear features increase landscape permeability and provide forage for multiple boreal wildlife species. Our results also further illustrate the importance of considering how linear feature restoration efforts focused on caribou may shift the distribution of other boreal wildlife species. Ultimately, conservation efforts for threatened species should recognize that conservation efforts focused on one species may have unintended consequences for interacting species.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.043

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.249 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosphereSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207