Winter habitat use by female caribou in relation to wildland fires in interior Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of wildland fire in the winter habitat use of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) has long been debated. Fire has been viewed as detrimental to caribou because it destroys the slow-growing climax forage lichens that caribou utilize in winter. Other researchers argued that caribou were not reliant on lichens and that fire may be beneficial, even in the short term. We evaluated the distribution of caribou relative to recent fires (<50 years old) within the current winter range of the Nelchina caribou herd in east-central Alaska. To address issues concerning independence and spatial and temporal scales, we used both conventional very high frequency and global positioning system telemetry to estimate caribou use relative to recent, known-aged burns. In addition, we used two methods to estimate availability of different habitat classes. Caribou used recently burned areas much less than expected, regardless of methodologies used. Moreover, within burns, caribou were more likely to use habitat within 500 m of the burn perimeter than core areas. Methods for determining use and availability did not have large influences on our measures of habitat selectivity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".