MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001183592 · doi:10.7557/2.33.2.2528

Status of northern mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Yukon, Canada

2013· article· en· W2001183592 on OpenAlexaffabout
Troy Hegel, Kyle Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsYukon Department of Environment
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyPopulationBorealHerdEcologyWoodland caribouPhysical geographyPredationBiologyArchaeologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) are an important ecological, cultural and economic resource in Yukon, Canada. Three caribou ecotypes occur within Yukon: Grant’s (R. t. granti), northern mountain (R. t. caribou), and boreal (R. t. caribou). Northern mountain caribou are classified as a species of special concern under Canada’s Species at Risk Act, and a national management plan for northern mountain caribou was recently completed. Twenty-six northern mountain caribou herds occur at least partially within Yukon, representing approximately 30,000 – 35,000 animals. Active monitoring of Yukon’s northern mountain caribou began in earnest in the early 1980s. To date, over 200 fall composition surveys have been carried out, over 1000 animals have been fitted with radio-collars, and nearly 40 formal population estimates have been completed. Disease and contaminant monitoring of these caribou has indicated relatively low disease prevalence and contaminant loading. Northern mountain caribou are harvested in Yukon, with an average of 230 caribou harvested per year by licensed hunters (1995 – 2012) and an unknown number by First Nation hunters. Future challenges related to caribou management and conservation in Yukon include increasing levels of industrial development primarily through mineral exploration and development, ensuring harvest of these herds is conducted sustainably given the absence of total harvest information, inter-jurisdictional management of shared herds, existing uncertainty surrounding herd distribution and delineation, and dealing with vehicle-related mortality of caribou for certain herds. Overall, the population status (i.e., trend) of eight herds is known, with two increasing, two decreasing, and four stable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207