MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981802737

Feasibility of Reintroducing The River Otter (Lontra Canadensis) in South Dakota

2003· article· en· W6981802737 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen PRAIRIE (South Dakota State University) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicProbability and Statistical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationVegetation (pathology)Riparian zoneSinkholeOtter
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, river otters (Lontra canadensis) occupy half their historical range, which extends throughout Canada and northern parts of the United States including the Great Lakes, the northeast, and the northwest regions. The river otter is a statethreatened species in South Dakota. I determined the current status and distribution of the river otter population and whether adequate habitat was available for reintroducing river otters in South Dakota. Rivers were selected by buffering specific features, such as stream size ( orders three to seven), water gradient, and water permanence, using the South Dakota Gap Analysis Project stream reach and watershed data. Vegetation transect sampling was conducted and a water sample was collected at each study site. Once information was obtained, rivers were rated ( one to five, where river otter suitability increases with increased values) according to river otter habitat requirements and based on stream characteristics, watershed features, water quality, prey availability, and other factors ( e.g., private or public ownership and stream accessibility). No remnant river otter population was found in South Dakota. Eighty-nine percent of river otter sightings were observed in eastern South Dakota. River otter sightings were more likely in eastern South Dakota due to the river otter reintroduction efforts by the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe. Percent canopy cover of riparian vegetation ranged from Oto 29. Percent cover of graminoid ranged from 1 1 to 40, forbs ranged from 1 6 to 40, shrubs ranged from 3 to 24, and other (e. g., litter) ranged from Oto 26. Secchi depth ranged from 0.01 m to 0.9 m, dissolved oxygen ranged from 5 ppm to 1 1 .0 ppm, alkalinity (methyl-orange) ranged from 1 40 mg/I to 740 mg/1, and pH ranged from 7.5 to 8. 5. Phosphorus (orthophosphate) ranged from 0. 7 mg/1 to 6.3 mg/1, nitrogen (nitrate-nitrogen) ranged from 0.01 mg/I to 0.26 mg/1, and temperature ranged from 18 C to 29 C. Important prey species include fish, especially species within the Ictaluridae (catfish and bullheads) and Catostomidae (suckers) families. Rivers with high ratings had better habitat, higher water quality, and greater prey availability than rivers with low ratings. The five highest rated river systems in South Dakota were the Bad River (75), Big Sioux River (74), James River (72), North Fork of the Whetstone River (72), and Little White River (69). After establishing that areas with adequate river otter habitat were available in South Dakota, a river otter reintroduction protocol was developed. The protocol included river otter release procedures, estimation of reintroduction expenses, and consideration of logistical problems.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.222 · 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