Seasonal movement patterns of woodland caribou (<i>Rangifer tarandus caribou</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For species conservation, defining seasons according to an animal's perception and consideration of seasonal differences in its use of space is required. First, a statistical approach was used to determine seasons based on rates of movement of radio‐collared caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou . Using polynomial regression, five seasons were delineated by inflection points that demarcate changes in rates of movement. Male and female caribou did not differ in timing and number of seasons. Second, the seasons so defined were used to describe the use of space in 33 caribou in north‐western Ontario, Canada. Greatest rates of movement occurred during spring and early winter migration when caribou had both the largest range size and largest distance between seasonal ranges. The general direction of movement was west in spring and east early in winter, although variation occurred among caribou and years. A drop in rate of movement lasting about 3 days may indicate calving. Caribou were most dispersed and occupied the smallest seasonal range during the calving season. The animals showed strong fidelity to calving areas in contrast to the highly variable year‐to‐year location of winter ranges. Understanding the seasons of animal movement patterns, and applying this understanding when developing plans for forest management, may help reduce adverse effects of forest harvesting on highly mobile animals such as 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".