MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389606946 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.15443

The taphonomic impact of scavenger guilds in peri‐urban and rural regions of central and southern Alberta. Part I – Identification of forensically relevant vertebrate scavengers

2023· article· en· W4389606946 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shari L. Forbes, Yvonne Kjorlien, Christopher J. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaMount Royal UniversityUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTaphonomyScavengerVertebrateEcologyBiologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a body decomposes in an outdoor environment, numerous taphonomic agents can act on the process of human decomposition. It is important to understand the impact of these agents as they can vary the rate of soft and hard tissue loss which may alter postmortem interval estimations. One taphonomic factor which has not been extensively investigated in many regions of the world, including Canada, are vertebrate scavengers. The current study aimed to identify scavenger guilds in the peri-urban and rural regions of two major cities in Alberta (Calgary and Edmonton) where human remains are frequently located. Vertebrate scavenger activity was recorded continuously using cellular and noncellular trail cameras. Images were analyzed to determine how the scavenging profiles (i.e., scavenger species, arrival time, and feeding behavior) impacted the loss of soft and hard tissue. We identified a range of mammalian and avian scavengers and found that coyote and black-billed magpie were the predominant scavengers recorded at the Edmonton peri-urban and rural sites, and the Calgary peri-urban sites. In contrast, when a site was within bear territory such as the Calgary rural sites, black and grizzly bears were the predominant scavengers. At all sites, the large mammalian scavengers were responsible for most soft tissue loss and subsequent hard tissue dispersal. None of the scavengers demonstrated a clear preference for open versus closed sites. This taphonomic information is important to consider when searching for human remains at these locations or in other North American regions with comparable scavenger guilds.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicForensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesFrench-language works237,207