Wolf predation on moose - a case study using hunter observations.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied predation by colonizing wolves on a high density and highly productive moose ( Alces alces) population in south-eastern Norway (about 1.5 moose and 0.01 wolves per km 2 in winter). As indices to population changes, we used hunter observations. Over the summer, the wolf pack utilized about one tenth of their total territory (530 km 2 ), with the den area as the centre of activity. Of the main prey taken (moose, roe deer, and beaver), moose calves contributed 61% of the biomass ingested by wolves in summer. Hunting statistics and hunters' observations of moose showed no changes for the territory as a whole after wolves settled there in 1998. However, in the den areas (60 - 80 km 2 ) the number of calves per cow and the total number of moose seen per hunter-day significantly decreased during the year of wolf reproduction. The following year, though, both indices increased again. We speculate that some of the lack of overall effects might be due to increased fecundity in cows that lost their calf. As the wolves changed their den from year to year, den areas were spatially spread over time. The pressure from wolf predation will differ between cohorts in the same area, and landowners should adjust their hunting quotas accordingly. ALCES VOL. 39: 263-272 (2003)
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 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 it