MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098512368 · doi:10.7557/2.23.5.1693

Modeling the decline of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, 1989-1998: the importance of survival vs. recruitment

2003· article· en· W2098512368 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen M. Arthur, Kenneth R. Whitten, Francis J. Mauer, Dorothy Cooley

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsYukon Department of Environment
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Geological SurveyAlaska Department of Fish and GameParks CanadaMassachusetts Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsHerdPorcupineBiologyPopulationPopulation declinePopulation growthDemographyAnimal scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Porcupine caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti) herd increased from approximately 100 000 animals during the 1970s to 178 000 in 1989, then declined to 129 000 by 1998. Our objective was to model the dynamics of this herd and investigate the potential that lower calf recruitment, as was observed during 1991-1993, produced the observed population changes. A deterministic model was prepared using estimates of birth and survival rates that reproduced the pattern of population growth from 1971-1989. Then, parameters were changed to simulate effects of lower calf recruitment and adult survival. Reducing recruitment for 3 years caused an immediate reduction in population size, but the population began to recover in 5-6 years. Even a dramatic temporary reduction in recruitment did not explain the continuing decline after 1995. In contrast, a slight but persistent reduction in adult survival caused a decline that closely followed the observed pattern. This suggests that survival of adults, and perhaps calves, has declined since the late 1980s.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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