MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389089612 · doi:10.3389/fcosc.2023.1305932

Reintroducing bison to Banff National Park – an ecocultural case study

2023· article· en· W4389089612 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Karsten Heuer, Jonathan James Farr, Leroy Littlebear, Mark Hebblewhite

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Conservation Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeParks Canada
FundersParks Canada
KeywordsNational parkIndigenousGeographyAbundance (ecology)EcosystemEcologyPsychological resilienceEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental ethicsBiologyArchaeologyPsychologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reintroduction of extirpated species is a frequent tactic in rewilding projects because of the functional role species play in maintaining ecosystem health. Despite their potential to benefit both ecosystems and society, however, most well-known species reintroductions have adopted an eco-centric, “nature-in-people-out” approach. Rewilding theory and practitioners acknowledge that ignoring the role Indigenous people did and might once again play in shaping the distribution, abundance, movements, behavior, and health of wild species and ecosystems, is limiting. In this case study, we describe the technical steps we took and how Indigenous knowledge, ceremony, and cultural monitoring were woven into the recent reintroduction of plains bison to Canada’s Banff National Park. Six years later, the reintroduced bison herd has grown from 16 to >100 animals, ranges mostly within 30 km of the release site, and, if current growth continues, will likely be managed with Indigenous harvesting. Transboundary bison policy differences are shifting and may lead to bison being more sustainable. The ecocultural approach, therefore, has increased the resilience of our rewilding project.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Conservation ScienceSame topicEnvironmental Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207