MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016929761 · doi:10.7557/2.21.1.1526

Caribou reactions to provocation by snowmachines in Newfoundland

2001· article· en· W2016929761 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shane P. Mahoney, Kim Mawhinney, Clare McCarthy, D. Anions, Samuel J Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaGovernment of Newfoundland and Labrador
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvocation testDemographyNational parkAnimal scienceEcologyGeographyBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Caribou in Gros Morne National Park reacted to provocation by snowmachine with significant differences in their response between years. Upon exposure to snowmachines, caribou were displaced 60 to 237 m from their initial locations. Groups with calves allowed the snowmachines to approach more closely before responding (5 to 600 m) than adult-only groups (30 to 1300 m), and their overall flight distances were less. Time spent in locomotion and overall reaction time were greater for animals engaged in the most sedentary activities (eg. standing; mean = 239 s and mean = 262 s, and lying; mean = 166 s and mean = 273 s) than for animals already engaged in more dynamic activities such as walking (mean = 118 s and mean = 133 s), running (mean = 74 s and mean = 63 s) and feeding (mean = 118 s and mean = 133 s). Annual differences in the response of adult-only groups were not due to differences in the sex ratio of these groups, but may be related to annual variation in winter weather conditions.

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 score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207