MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086370041 · doi:10.7557/2.27.4.318

In search of a critical habitat concept for woodland caribou, boreal population

2007· article· en· W2086370041 on OpenAlexaff
G. D. Racey, A. Alan Arsenault

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersNorthwestern University
KeywordsWoodland caribouCritical habitatHabitatBorealWoodlandEcologyPopulationGeographyBiologyEndangered species

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A hierarchical approach to critical habitat identification has been proposed in the draft National Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population. This approach proposes that critical habitat for boreal caribou be identified as equivalent with caribou ranges and their composite range components, and that it be consistent with the biological needs of a wild, self-sustaining local population of woodland caribou. These components include seasonal ranges, high use areas and calving sites, each of which provide for important ecological functions and are subject to specific risks from human development activities. Protection of critical habitat is accomplished through management of the amount and type of human developments and potential natural disturbances, not by prohibiting all activity. This approach to critical habitat sets the stage for management and monitoring of habitat at spatial and temporal scales appropriate for conservation of a wide ranging species such as 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207