Conservation of caribou (<i>Rangifer tarandus</i>) in Canada: an uncertain future<sup>1</sup>This review is part of the virtual symposium “Flagship Species – Flagship Problems” that deals with ecology, biodiversity and management issues, and climate impacts on species at risk and of Canadian importance, including the polar bear (<i>Ursus maritimus</i>), Atlantic cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>), Piping Plover (<i>Charadrius melodus</i>), and caribou (<i>Rangifer tarandus</i>).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caribou ( Rangifer tarandus (L., 1758)) play a central role in the ecology and culture of much of Canada, where they were once the most abundant cervid. Most populations are currently declining, and some face extirpation. In southern Canada, caribou range has retreated considerably over the past century. The ultimate reason for their decline is habitat alterations by industrial activities. The proximate causes are predation and, to a lesser extent, overharvest. The most southerly populations of “Mountain” caribou are at imminent risk of extirpation. Mountain caribou are threatened by similar industrial activities as Boreal caribou, and face increasing harassment from motorized winter recreational activities. Most populations of “Migratory Tundra” caribou are currently declining. Although these caribou fluctuate in abundance over decades, changing harvest technologies, climate change, increasing industrial development and human presence in the North raise doubts over whether recent declines will be followed by recoveries. The Peary caribou ( Rangifer tarandus pearyi J.A. Allen, 1902), a distinct subspecies endemic to Canada’s High Arctic, has suffered drastic declines caused by severe weather, hunting and predation. It faces an increasing threat from climate change. While some questions remain about the reasons for the decline of Migratory Tundra caribou, research has clearly identified several threats to the persistence of “Boreal”, Mountain, and Peary caribou. Scientific knowledge, however, has neither effectively influenced policies nor galvanized public opinion sufficiently to push governments into effective actions. The persistence of many caribou populations appears incompatible with the ongoing pace of industrial development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".