Population ecology of eastern coyotes (Canis latrans ) on Prince Edward Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study represents the first effort to extensively monitor eastern coyotes (Canis latrans) throughout Prince Edward Island (PEI). The main purpose was to determine the population characteristics of coyotes and provide baseline data on their ecology. This study was conducted from August 2001 to August 2003. Scent station surveys were carried out to determine the relative abundance of coyotes, red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), raccoons (Procyon lotor) and striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) and the relationships between each species. The relative abundance of these species was 54.0 ± 51.9, 47.8 ± 42.1, 17.9 ± 30.5 and 37.1 ± 33.1, respectively. Data collected from 12 radio-collared coyotes were used to determine their home range characteristics, and data obtained from one global positioning system (GPS) collared coyote were used to determine movement characteristics. Analysis of 9 carcasses harvested during the fall and winter by local hunters and trappers and of 25 scat samples were conducted to determine the population dynamics and diet of coyotes on PEI. This study was successful in gathering quantitative information on the population of coyotes inhabiting PEI which can be used to develop management strategies specific to this population. (Abstract shortened by UMI.).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".