MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118321579 · doi:10.7557/2.25.4.1774

Putting the environmental impact assessment process into practice for woodland caribou in the Alberta Oil Sands Region

2005· article· en· W2118321579 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paula Bentham

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodland caribouThreatened speciesWoodlandOil sandsResource (disambiguation)GeographyPopulationEnvironmental resource managementHabitatCritical habitatEnvironmental protectionEcologyEnvironmental scienceEndangered speciesArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1985, woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) have been designated as a threatened species in Alberta. Populations studied since the 1970s have been stable or declining, with no population increases documented. Resource expansion into previously undeveloped areas and associated increases in access have been implicated as possible causes for the declines. To facilitate development on caribou ranges, while ensuring the integrity and supply of caribou habitat, standing committees have been formed. The primary role of the committees is to act as advisory bodies to the government and to search for effective and efficient industrial operating guidelines. Recent research has been conducted on the responses of woodland caribou ecotypes to increased human and predator access. Based on this research, operating guidelines have been refined and implemented through Caribou Protection Plans. I discuss how the current operating guidelines are put into practice and linked to the Environmental Assessment process within the Oil Sands Region of Alberta. In particular, I discuss the origination of impact predictions, specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts and monitoring.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207