MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080402183 · doi:10.7557/2.31.2.2015

Factors affecting the body condition of female-calf pairs in two herds of migratory caribou in Northern Québec/Labrador

2011· article· en· W2080402183 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joëlle Taillon

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCenter for Northern Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerdGeographyEcologyFisheryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Northern Qubec and Labrador, more than one million migratory tundra caribou range over nearly a million square kilometres. Of the two recognized populations, Rivire-aux-Feuilles herd is very large and may be declining; Rivire-George herd is currently estimated at about half the size of Rivire-aux-Feuilles herd but may be increasing. The factors influencing body condition of tundra caribou are poorly understood, but are essential to our understanding of natural and human-induced variations in the survival and reproductive success of individuals and in population dynamics. We compared the body condition and parasite load of 20 female-calf pairs in each herd during June (calving) and October-November (weaning) 2007. Adult females from Rivire-George herd were heavier than those from Rivire-aux-Feuilles herd, but they did not differ in skeletal size. Calves from Rivire-George herd were much heavier and larger at birth and at weaning than those from Rivire-aux-Feuilles herd. Combining the June and autumn datasets, we compared adult female body condition following lactation and calf body condition and early growth in the two herds. Differences in body condition of female-calf pairs appear to be useful indicators of demographic changes and could reflect the quality of avail able summer habitats. Our results suggest that Rivire-aux-Feuilles herd may be declining.

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)0.001
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 score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207