MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095920391 · doi:10.7557/2.27.4.343

Caribou nursery site habitat characteristics in two northern Ontario parks

2007· article· en· W2095920391 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Natasha L. Carr, Arthur Rodgers, Shannon C. Walshe

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsWoodland caribouWoodlandGeographyGroundcoverHabitatVegetation (pathology)EcologyShrubWildlifeMoorlandForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To prevent further range recession, habitat features essential to the life-history requisites of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) such as calving and nursery sites need to be protected for the persistence of the species. Woodland caribou may minimize predation risk during calving by either spacing out or spacing away from predators in the forest to calve on islands, wetlands, or shorelines. Our objective was to determine the characteristics of shoreline habitats used as calving and nursery sites by female woodland caribou in northern Ontario. Detailed vegetation and other site characteristics were measured at nursery sites used by cow-calf pairs in Wabakimi and Woodland Caribou Provincial Parks for comparison with shoreline sites that were not used by caribou within each park. Differences in habitat variables selected by female caribou in the two study areas reflect broad ecoregional differences in vegetation and topography. In Wabakimi Provincial Park, understorey tree density and ground detection distance played key roles in distinguishing nursery sites from sites that were not used. In Woodland Caribou Provincial Park, groundcover vegetation and shrub density were important in the selection of nursery sites by female caribou. Generally, female caribou in both parks selected nursery sites with greater slope, lower shrub density but thicker groundcover vegetation, including greater lichen abundance, and higher densities of mature trees than shoreline sites that were not used. The identification of these important features for caribou nursery sites provides a basis for improving their protection in future management policies and legislation.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207