Comparison of seasonal habitat selection between threatened woodland caribou ecotypes in central British Columbia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in British Columbia have been classified into ecotypes based on differences in use of habitat in winter. Although recovery planning focuses on ecotypes, habitat use and selection varies within ecotypes. Our objectives were to compare habitat use and selection among previously identified woodland caribou herds at the transition zone between northern (Moberly, Quintette, and Kennedy herds) and mountain (Parsnip herd) ecotypes in central British Columbia. We developed selection models for each herd in spring, calving, summer/fall, early and late winter. Topographic models best predicted selection by most herds in most seasons, but importance of vegetation-cover was highlighted by disproportionate use of specific vegetation-cover types by all caribou herds (e.g., in early winter, 75% of Kennedy locations were in pine-leading stands, 84% of Parsnip locations were in fir and fir-leading stands, and 87 and 96% of locations were in alpine for the Moberly and Quintette herds, respectively). Using a combination of GPS and VHF radio-collar locations, we documented some spatial overlap among herds within the year, but use of vegetation-cover types and selection of elevations, aspects, and vegetation-cover types differed among herds and within ecotypes in all seasons. Habitat use and selection were most similar between the two northern-ecotype herds residing on the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains. This research indicates that habitat use and selection by caribou herds in all seasons is more variable than ecotype classifications suggest and demonstrates the value of undertaking herd-specific mapping of critical habitat for 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it