MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005638243 · doi:10.7557/2.31.2.1991

Movements of boreal caribou in the James Bay lowlands

2011· article· en· W2005638243 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Megan E. Hazell, Mark E. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsWoodland caribouBayTundraGeographyHome rangeBorealRange (aeronautics)Ice calvingTaigaPhysical geographyUrsus maritimusArcticEcologyFisheryHabitatForestryBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about the movements and home range of boreal woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in the James Bay lowlands, northern Ontario. Our preliminary study involves the use of GPS collars with Argos satellite system uplink to monitor movements of caribou and 10 animals were collared in December 2004. Animals appeared to have reduced rates of daily movement starting approximately in mid to late December and stretching until late February. Similarly, most animals appeared to have very reduced rates of movement from the beginning of May to the end of June indicating that this is their calving period (includes both parturition as well as the period immediately after parturition). Thus the over-wintering range was assumed to be where the animals were from mid-December to late February and the calving range was defined as the area they were in from the beginning of May to the end of June. Individual home-ranges were typically large, the mean 90% kernel home range for 2004 - 2007 was 41 579 km2. Over wintering areas and calving areas were small when compared to annual home-range size and reflect the reduced rates of movement during these time periods. Female caribou show site fidelity to calving grounds, using the same core areas year after year. However, the same level of site fidelity was not observed in over-wintering areas. The caribou in the James Bay lowlands display behaviours that are characteristic of both the forest-tundra and forest-forest ecotypes which may warrant the reconsideration of the validity of proposed ecotypes with respect to protection under species-at-risk legislation.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207