MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069752152 · doi:10.7557/2.22.2.1533

Does seasonal variation in forage quality influence the potential for resource competition between muskoxen and Peary caribou on Banks Island?

2002· article· en· W2069752152 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas C. Larter, John A. Nagy, David S. Hik

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaGovernment of Northwest Territories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForageBiologyCarexSeasonalityWillowAgronomyCompetition (biology)Growing seasonPopulationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inter- and intra-annual variation in forage quality may influence population dynamics of Peary caribou and muskoxen on Banks Island. From 1993 to 1998 we collected 300 composite samples of sedge (Carex aquatilis and Carex spp.), willow (Salix arctica), legume (Oxytropis spp. and Astragalus spp.), and avens (Dryas integrifolia). Samples were collected in mid-June (start of the growing season), mid-July (peak of the growing season), mid-late August (senescence), and early (November), mid- (February), and late- (April/May) winter. We analysed forages for percent digestibility (in vitro acid-pepsin dry matter digestibility), crude protein (CP), fibre, lignin, and energy content. There was significant inter-annual variation in levels of lignin, fibre, and energy, and significant intra-annual (seasonal) variation for all quality measures and forages, which reflected the strong difference in quality between summer and winter. We discuss the relationship between forage quality and seasonal diet composition of Peary caribou and muskoxen, and the potential implications for the reduced Peary caribou and high muskoxen populations.

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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207