MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W773735872

Of Moose and Mud

2005· article· en· W773735872 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic roads · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceHabitatRoad constructionLimeResource (disambiguation)AttractivenessGeographyEngineeringEcologyCivil engineeringGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research in British Columbia, Canada, finds that one reason why moose and other ungulates use highways and byways in their seasonal migrations may be to access roadside deposits, or mineral But when these features exist near roadways, they entice moose to use habitat dangerously close to the motoring public. This article details new methods which try to reduce animal-vehicle collisions by deactivating roadside deposits. Researchers at the University of Northern British Columbia and in California are coordinating research efforts to determine how to reduce moose-car collisions. Their study objectives are to (1) define strategies that will result in increased motorist safety, (2) reduce material damage claims, and (3) conserve the animal resource. It plans to diminish the attractiveness of roadside licks in order to reduce moose activity near roadways. One deactivation technique involves excavating a lick site and backfilling the area with materials unattractive to moose. Reinforcing fabric materials placed over the site is another option that could inhibit access to the soils and water and serve as a base for placing sod and planting unpalatable plant species. Likewise, covering the site with boulders or asphalt debris might deter moose visit. Still another technique is to spread a layer of lime or cement over the lick site and mix into the wet soil to creat a 6- to 24-inch layer that would cure and become a hard surface material, thus reducing the attractivenes of the area to ungulates. Rerouting site hydrology and drying up the lick might reduce it attractiveness since moose are attracted to wet licks. Campaigns to reduce animal-auto collisions should consider all possibilities and should consider what an animal is doing in a corridor. If a moose is there to forage, countermeasures should concentrate on diminishing its foraging base. In areas where there are frequent moose-auto collisions, installing new signage and posting reduced speed limits would alert motorists about potential threats and offer interim solutions until better deactivation techniques can be implemented in those areas. A project team from the University of Northern British Columbia will begin field testing in the summer of 2006, and in 2008 it expects to recommend the most effective techniques to the Canadian Ministry of Transportation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.208 · 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