MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096822901

PANEL 5: BEARS AND HUMAN BEINGS Conservation of the Grizzly- Ecologic and Cuttural Considerations

2015· article· en· W7096822901 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and biodiversity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistribution (mathematics)Natural (archaeology)Range (aeronautics)Abundance (ecology)HabitatSettlement (finance)Wetland
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The idea that before settlement the grizzly occurred fa r ac ross the prai r ie eastward of the Rocky Mountains has prevailed for a long time (Seton 1929; Hall & Kelson 1959). Since the geographic distribution of a species is a matter of ecologic significance, i t may be worthwhile to examine this information. It is recognized, of course, that a line on a map demarking the outer limit of a distribution in any direction does not represent necessarily either a continuous o r static situation. The distribution of a species not only will be in accordance with i t s habitat, but also the extremistics of this will vary time--and--place-wise according to prevailing conditions. These often a r e most variable at a range periphery. My concern in this paper is with the distribution of the g.rizzly bear on the prai r ie east of the rocky Mountains from Canada's Saskatchewan River south-ward to the Arkansas River in the United States. For information bearing on this matter, recourse was taken to a part of our heritage of historical l i tera-ture, which is the source of an abundance of little used natural history informa-

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0120.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.007

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.165 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicEcology and biodiversity studiesFrench-language works237,207