MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989880321 · doi:10.7557/2.23.5.1682

Effectiveness of spatial mitigation for the George River Caribou Herd within the military training area of Labrador and Québec

2003· article· en· W1989880321 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Perry G. Trimper, Tony E. Chubbs

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistère de la Défense Nationale
KeywordsAerial surveyTransectGeographyBiological dispersalTraining (meteorology)FisheryPeninsulaPhysical geographyEcologyCartographyArchaeologyBiologyPopulationMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The George River Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) Herd (GRCH) regularly migrates through the military Low Level Training Area (LLTA) used for jet training out of 5 Wing Goose Bay, Labrador. Potential disturbance to caribou by military aircraft has been mitigated through the reconfiguration of the LLTA in 1996 away from the traditional migration routes and the establishment of closure areas based on the locations of >20 adults fitted with satellite telemetry collars. In 2000 and 2001, we conducted seven aerial surveys to examine the caribou distribution and abundance within the northern portion and adjacent area of the LLTA during post-calving, summer dispersal, pre-rut and late winter. We flew transects to examine approximately 10% of areas traditionally used during each period. The timing and direction of cari¬bou movements through this region were similar to that observed in the 1990s. Collared caribou were a good indicator of movements of the GRCH through the LLTA. Closure areas based on the location of satellite collars and direction of movement, were found to enclose the majority of caribou observed within the LLTA. Most GRCH activity now occurs outside the LLTA as a result of reconfiguration.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207