Distribution and relative abundance of caribou in the Hudson Plains Ecozone of Ontario
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
To determine past distribution and relative abundance of caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in the Hudson Plains Ecozone (HPE) of Ontario, we reviewed past HPE-wide winter systematic aerial surveys, partial winter systematic surveys, summer photographic surveys, incidental observations of caribou, and other sources of information from the period 1950—2003. We conducted new HPE-wide aerial surveys in February 2003 and 2004 to evaluate current distribution patterns. From this information, we defined 9 core wintering areas in the HPE and differentiated between 3 catego¬ries of relative abundance. Wintering areas for the January—March period have changed relatively little over the past 45 years. Summer distribution of caribou along the Hudson Bay coast apparently shifted or expanded from the area west of the Severn River to the central and eastern portions of the coast since the 1980s, and caribou observations have become much more common in the area east of the Winisk River since 1998. Because major resource development activities in the HPE are proposed and some are imminent, we recommend additional caribou surveys to document current caribou population identity, size, and distribution, and research projects to better define caribou wintering areas, calving areas, and movement patterns in the HPE.
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) | 0.000 | 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