MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998477345 · doi:10.1080/10256010903388410

Influence of forage preferences and habitat use on<sup>13</sup>C and<sup>15</sup>N abundance in wild caribou (<i>Rangifer tarandus caribou</i>) and moose (<i>Alces alces</i>) from Canada

2010· article· en· W1998477345 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dorothée G. Drucker, Keith A. Hobson, Jean‐Pierre Ouellet, Réhaume Courtois

Bibliographic record

VenueIsotopes in Environmental and Health Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and WildlifeUniversité du Québec à RimouskiEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
KeywordsTundraTaigaUngulateArcticEcologyAbundance (ecology)ForageLichenHabitatBorealδ13CBiologyEnvironmental scienceStable isotope ratio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stable isotope composition (delta(13)C and delta(15)N) of moose (Alces alces) and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) hair from the boreal forest of Jacques-Cartier Park and Cote-Nord (Quebec) and arctic tundra of Queen Maud Gulf and Southampton Island (Nunavut) was investigated as an indicator of dietary preferences and habitat use. Values of delta(13)C(hair) and delta(15)N(hair) in moose were consistently lower compared to those of caribou. This is consistent with the depletion in (13)C and (15)N in the plants preferred by moose, essentially browse (shrub and tree leaves), compared to caribou forage, which included significant amounts of graminoids, lichen and fungi. The delta(13)C(hair) values of caribou differed between closed boreal forest and open-tundra ecosystems. This pattern followed that expected from the canopy effect observed in plant communities. Variation in delta(15)N(hair) values of caribou was probably linked to the effect of different climatic conditions on plant communities. This study underlines the potential of isotopic analysis for studies on diet and habitat selection within a pure C(3) plant environment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

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

Citations85
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsotopes in Environmental and Health StudiesSame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207