The Positive Impact of the Wolf Restoration in Yellowstone National Park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wolves have always been a mystical figure in early history. Everyone has read the fairy tale of Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf (Perrualt) and how the wolf wanted to eat the little girl. In the Three Little Pigs, (Jacobs) the wolf has been vilified as a predator, trying to kill the Three Little Pigs. Not all folklore made the wolf out to be the bad guy. Rudyard Kipling wrote a story called, The Jungle Boy, in where an orphaned boy was raised by a pack of wolves. Sometimes people tend to remember the bad and forget the good. Unfortunately, the wolf has been associated as the big bad wolf in history for a long time. The wolf has been revered, vilified, feared, mystified, and made into God like symbols. Farmers believe them to be predators and are a threat to their livestock and survival. They have been poisoned, trapped tortured and systematically slaughtered. Although research is showing a positive impact that the gray wolf has had in Yellowstone, many people still refuse to believe the science. \n\tAfter near extinction, in 1995, wolves again found their home in Yellowstone National Park. (Yellowstonepark) After a lot of controversy, both from animal rights activists, farmers, scientists, environmentalist, and citizens with many opinions, 31 wild gray wolves, transported from Canada were released into Yellowstone. (Smith) There has been a lot of research done about predatory animals and their contribution to wildlife management. Many people believe that science should be the prime motivator in whether the gray wolf is necessary to keep Yellowstone's environment in balance. And that research and data collected, should determine the outcome of gray wolves to live or not in Yellowstone. Research has proven that gray wolves are having a beneficial impact in Yellowstone. What are those benefits and how do we convince people that wolves are not bad for Yellowstone. Science has proven that gray wolves contribute greatly to the healthy environmental impact and should be allowed to live in Yellowstone.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".