Caribou conservation and recovery in Ontario: development and implementation of the Caribou Conservation Plan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The range of Ontario’s woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) (forest-dwelling ecotype) has receded northward substantially over many decades, leading to its current Threatened designation. Ontario released its Caribou Conservation Plan (CCP) in the fall of 2009. This policy responded to public input and recommendations from the Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Team and the Caribou Science Review Panel, and outlines conservation and recovery actions to conserve and recover caribou. Within an adaptive management framework, the CCP builds upon a recent history of managing at large landscape scales in Ontario to implement a range management approach as the basis for recovery actions. These commitments and actions include enhanced research and monitoring, improved caribou habitat planning at the landscape scale, an integrated range analysis approach using advanced assessment tools to evaluate thresholds of habitat amount, arrangement and disturbance, the assessment of probability of persistence, consideration of cumulative effects, meeting forest management silvicultural performance requirements, consideration of caribou recovery implications when managing other wildlife, an initial focus on the southern edge of caribou distribution where threats are most significant, improved outreach and stewardship, and consideration of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge in recovery actions. Implementation of the CCP signifies a long-term provincial commitment to caribou recovery, initially focusing on identified priorities within the CCP.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".