MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063762394 · doi:10.7557/2.31.2.1993

Female site fidelity of the Mealy Mountain caribou herd (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Labrador

2011· article· en· W2063762394 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jesse N. Popp, James A. Schaefer, Frank F. Mallory

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityLaurentian University
FundersTrent University
KeywordsWoodland caribouPhilopatryThreatened speciesGeographyPopulationIce calvingEcologyAerial surveyFisheryHabitatBiologyCartographyBiological dispersalDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mealy Mountain caribou population of southeastern Labrador is listed as threatened. Site fidelity - the philopatric tendency of an animal to remain in or return to the same site - has often been suspected in sedentary caribou like the Mealy Mountain, but rarely has been examined. Philopatric behaviours are important because fidelity sites may then receive priority protection from human disturbance. To describe and document site fidelity for the Mealy Mountain herd, satellite telemetry data from 12 collared adult females during three years was examined. The mean distance between locations in consecutive years of tracking the individual caribou was calculated and an annual profile of site fidelity generated. This profile illustrated that the lowest inter-year distances occurred during calving, when caribou returned to within 39 km (2005-06) and 11.5 km (2006-07) of the previous year's location, and during post-calving, when the mean distance was 7.7 km (2005-06). Spring snow depths were substantially greater in 2007 and appeared to weaken calving site fidelity. This spatial information may serve as a basis for detecting anthropogenic effects on woodland caribou.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207