Ecology and Habitat Selection of a Woodland Caribou Population in West-central Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the ecology of Rangifer tarandus caribou (woodland caribou) in the Naosap range in west-central Manitoba, Canada. This population is considered to be of high conservation concern because of potential resource-development impacts; therefore, baseline data are required to guide and evaluate the management of this species in this area. Radio-telemetry data were collected every two weeks from February 1998 to April 2001 and used in combination with forest-inventory data to evaluate habitat selection, site fidelity, movement, and grouping patterns. In both summer and winter, selected habitats were mature upland spruce and pine forests, as well as treed muskeg. Hardwood forests were least selected at all scales. Mature coniferous forest was preferred over immature coniferous forests in a pair-wise comparison in winter, but not in summer. Home-range sizes were within expected ranges of variation. Animals used distinct areas in summer and winter, showing broad fidelity to seasonal ranges. However, small shifts in the core areas were observed, particularly in winter. Movement rates and grouping behavior were typical of other caribou. Habitats used in winter were common in the study area, but the ability of the animals to disperse to alternate winter areas is not known. Management efforts could focus on protecting known calving and winter-use areas, and regenerating coniferous forests after logging, which is consistent with regional forest-management objectives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".