MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096693647

Correction: A Comparison of Grizzly Bear Demographic Parameters Estimated from Non-

2015· article· en· W7096693647 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistribution (mathematics)Spatial distributionPopulation densityGrizzly BearsDistance samplingAltitude (triangle)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are errors in S2 Fig. Please view the correct S2 Fig below. Supporting Information S2 Fig. Map of showing the posterior density of grizzly bear activity centres from 2006 through 2008 in Banff National Park, AB, Canada. The spatial distribution of activity centers was influenced by the distribution of traps across the study area and the locations of observed bear detections. (TIF)

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4810.144

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→