MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064353123 · doi:10.7557/2.23.5.1715

Twenty-five years of co-management of caribou in northern Québec

2003· article· en· W2064353123 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. Dion

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationWildlifeGeographyFishingWildlife managementFisheryCaptive breedingPolitical scienceLibrary scienceEcologyDemographySociologyEndangered speciesBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Hunting Fishing and Trapping Co-ordinating Committee (HFTCC), created at the signature of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has been meeting regularly since 1977. Early in the process, it became clear that the perception of the role and powers of the Committee were not commonly shared by the native and non-native members of the Committee. Nevertheless, the Committee has been used primarily as a consultative body for wildlife related issues. Of all the files on which the Committee worked, Caribou management, (including the development of outfitting and commercial hunting for this species) has been among one of the most discussed subjects during the meetings. An analysis of important decisions taken and of the process that led to them reveal that very rarely was the Committee able to formulate unanimous resolutions to the Governments concerning caribou management. In fact, only a few unanimous resolutions could be traced and many were ignored. This took place during a period of abundance and growth of the caribou herds. As a result, the Committee has gone through the cycle of growth of the George River Herd without a management plan, without a long term outfitting management plan and for the last 8 years, without a population estimate of the herds. This situation did not prevent the Committee from allocating quotas for a commercial hunt, open a winter sport hunt and to give permanent status to outfitting camps that were once established as mobile camps. It was hoped then that increased harvest would help maintain the population at carrying capacity. This short-term reaction however, never evolved into a more elaborate plan. Of course this must be looked at in the context of the HFTCC having a lot more to worry about than the Caribou. Although all members know of the population cycles of caribou, the decision process that must be triggered, should a crisis occur is not in place. This presently results into a polarization of concerned users (fall outfitters vs. winter outfitters, subsistence and sport hunters vs. commercial hunt, Outfitters Associations vs. HFTCC and eventually George River Herd users vs. Leaf River Herd users. The HFTCC may have to make difficult decisions during the coming years but did not gain much constructive experience through its first 25 years of existence. It is unfortunate that the authority of the Committee is binding the governments only in times of crisis when an upper limit of kill needs to be established. Because of the unpredictability of caribou herd numbers, the upper limit of kill should be established on a yearly basis. This would insure that the committee is fed information continuously in order to make informed decisions and would also re-establish the authority of the HFTCC over this resource.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.318 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207