The social landscape of wolves in Canada - preliminary findings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the long-standing presence of wolves (Canis lupus) in Canada, attitudes toward wolves have been understudied at the national scale. However, such data can inform wildlife management policies and robust coexistence strategies. We developed an 11-question survey to assess “the social landscape” of wolves in Canada. We explored the following research questions: 1) Are attitudes toward wolves generally positive? 2) What is the role of proximity on attitudes toward and tolerance for wolves? 3) What demographic characteristics matter most? Preliminary results indicate that Canadians have positive attitudes toward wolves regardless of age, gender, province, and vote in the last federal election; only ethnicity had a statistically significant effect. We also found that positive attitude is related to proximity and tolerance. More research with larger sample sizes and more focused surveys are needed to delve deeper into these preliminary results.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it