Woodland caribou range occupancy in northwestern Ontario: past and present
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A zone of continuous woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) distribution is defined for northwestern Ontario. This zone establishes a benchmark for measuring the success of future management of habitat and conservation of populations. Inventory of key winter, summer and calving habitats reaffirms the concept of a dynamic mosaic of habitat tracts that supports caribou across the landscape. The historical range recession leading to this current distribution has been associated with resource development, fire and hunting activities over the past 150 years, and numerous attempts at conservation over the last 70 years. The decline was apparently phased according to several periods of development activity: i) early exploitation in the early to mid-1800s; ii) isolation and extirpation of southern populations due to rapid changes in forest use and access between 1890 and 1930; and iii) further loss of the southernmost herds due to forest harvesting of previously inaccessible areas since the 1950s. Lessons learned from history support current conservation measures to manage caribou across broad landscapes, protect southern herds, maintain caribou habitat as part of continuous range, maintain large contiguous tracts of older forest and ensure connectivity between habitat components.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".