MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087276705 · doi:10.7557/2.31.2.1994

Little Smoky Woodland Caribou Calf Survival Enhancement Project

2011· article· en· W2087276705 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kirkby G. Smith, Lois Anne Pittaway

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsAlberta Environment and Protected Areas
FundersCanadian Natural Resources LimitedSuncor Energy IncorporatedConocoPhillips
KeywordsWoodland caribouHerdCaptivityBiologyEcologyWoodlandAnimal sciencePredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Little Smoky woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus) herd is a boreal ecotype located in west central Alberta, Canada. This herd has declined steadily over the past decade and is currently thought to number approximately 80 animals. Factors contributing to the herds' decline appear related to elevated predator-caused mortality rates resulting from industrial caused landscape change. At current rates of decline, the herd is at risk of extirpation. A calf survival enhancement project was initiated in the first half of 2006 as a means of enhancing recruitment while other longer-term approaches were implemented. A total of 10 pregnant females were captured in early March and held in captivity until all calves were at least 3 weeks old. Before release, calves were radiocollared with expandable drop-off collars. Following release, survival of mother and offspring were tracked at intervals until the fall rut. Survival of penned calves was compared to "wild-born" calves at heel of non captive radiocollared females. This approach is compared to other techniques designed to increase recruitment in 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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207