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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".