MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967036306 · doi:10.5061/dryad.2280gb5tt

Data from: Harvest and density-dependent predation drive long-term population decline in a northern ungulate

2022· dataset· en· W6967036306 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDRYAD · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUngulatePredationPopulationPopulation declinePopulation growthContext (archaeology)Trophic levelPopulation cycleWildlife

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relative effect of top-down versus bottom-up forces in regulating and limiting wildlife populations is an important theme in ecology. Untangling these effects is critical for a basic understanding of trophic dynamics and effective management. We examined the drivers of moose (Alces alces) population growth by integrating two independent sources of observations within a hierarchical Bayesian population model. This analysis used one of the largest existing spatiotemporal datasets on ungulate population dynamics globally. We documented a 20% population decline over the period examined. Moose population growth was negatively density-dependent. Although the mechanisms producing density-dependent suppression of population growth could not be determined, the relatively low densities at which moose populations were documented suggests it could be due primarily to density-dependent predation. Predation primarily limited population growth, except at low density, where it was regulating. Harvest appeared to be largely additive and contributed to population declines. Our results, highlight how population dynamics are context dependent and vary strongly across gradients in climate, forest type, and predator abundance. These results help clarify long-standing questions in population ecology and highlight the complex relationships between natural and human-caused mortality in driving ungulate population dynamics.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDRYADFrench-language works237,207