Spring-loaded reproduction: effects of body condition and population size on fertility in migratory caribou (<i>Rangifer tarandus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many ungulates, female fecundity is affected by body condition and has important effects on population dynamics. In some species, females adopt a conservative strategy, reducing reproductive effort when population density is high. We investigated what factors affect the probability of gestation in adult female caribou (Rangifer tarandus (L., 1758)) from the Rivière-George herd in northern Quebec and Labrador over 5 years that spanned various population sizes and trends. Similar to other populations of migratory caribou, the probability that a female was pregnant in spring increased with body mass and percent body fat. The probability of gestation appeared to be reduced by high infestation of warbles (Hypoderma tarandi (L., 1758)). The proportion of females pregnant varied between years and was lower at high population size. Females of similar mass, however, were pregnant regardless of whether the population was increasing at low density, had reached a peak, or was declining. Compared with other ungulates that reduce maternal expenditure at high density, female caribou of the Rivière-George herd may have a risk-prone reproductive strategy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".