Quantifying barrier effects of roads and seismic lines on movements of female woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linear developments such as roads, seismic lines, and pipeline rights-of-way are common anthropogenic features in the boreal forest of Alberta. These features may act as barriers to the movement of threatened woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Thirty-six woodland caribou were captured and fitted with global positioning system collars. These collared caribou yielded 43 415 locations during the 12-month study period. We compared rates of crossing roads and seismic lines with rates at which caribou crossed simulated roads and seismic lines created using ArcInfo GIS. Seismic lines were not barriers to caribou movements, whereas roads with moderate vehicle traffic acted as semipermeable barriers to caribou movements. The greatest barrier effects were evident during late winter, when caribou crossed actual roads 6 times less frequently than simulated road networks. Semipermeable barrier effects may exacerbate functional habitat loss demonstrated through avoidance behaviour. This novel approach represents an important development in the burgeoning field of road ecology and has great potential for use in validating animal-movement models.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".