Habitat use by caribou in northern Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habitat mapping and habitat supply assessment have been identified as key elements of the Alberta Woodland Caribou Conservation Strategy. Previous studies from northeastern Alberta have shown that caribou select lowland habitat types and avoid upland. The objectives of our study were to determine whether these selection patterns are consistent across all of northern Alberta and to generate a map of habitat suitability for the entire region. Our database included over 11 000 radiotelemetry locations collected over six years from caribou across northern Alberta. We also had available a recently revised map of peatlands for the entire province. We found that polygons in the peatland map containing greater than 30% bog were selected by caribou. Fens were also selected, but not as strongly as bogs. Habitat polygons containing greater than 50% non-peat were avoided. These findings were consistent among all regions studied, and among years. The proportion of caribou relocations declined exponentially with distance from polygons classified as peatlands. Based on the observed selection patterns, we reclassified the peatland map to reflect the potential suitability of habitat for caribou across northern Alberta.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".