MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406936419 · doi:10.1111/cobi.14448

Coexisting with large carnivores based on the Volterra principle

2025· article· en· W4406936419 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark S. Boyce, C. Carpentier, John D. C. Linnell

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersHøgskolen i InnlandetNorges ForskningsrådNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionBiodiversa+Alberta Conservation Association
KeywordsPredationWildlifeAbundance (ecology)EcologyGeographyCompetition (biology)Wildlife managementHerbivorePredatorRange (aeronautics)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coexistence with large carnivores represents one of the world's highest profile conservation challenges. Ecologists have identified ecological benefits derived from large carnivores (and large herbivores), yet livestock depredation, perceived competition for shared game, risks to pets and humans, and social conflicts often lead to demands for reduction of predator numbers from a range of stakeholder groups. Nearly 100 years ago, Vito Volterra predicted that increased mortality on both prey and predators results in increased abundance of prey and decreased abundance of predators. This principle appears to be robust and often consistent with the objectives of wildlife management. Although seldom recognized, and rarely tested in the field, the Volterra principle is a fundamental outcome of ecological theory with important implications for conservation.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207