Winter Habitat Associations of a Low-Density Moose (<i>Alces americanus</i>) Population in Central Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alces americanus (Moose) are relatively new to Labrador, having only colonized the area in the late 1940s, and little is known about this population. We conducted large-scale aerial surveys for Moose in a 122,000-km2 area during winter 2000 and in a 29,900-km2 area in winter 2001. Moose densities were low in each area (1.6–3.0 Moose per 100 km2). Bull:cow ratios were nearly even and calf:cow ratios were relatively high, indicative of a population exposed to little hunting or predation pressure. Twinning rates were low, suggesting low range productivity. Moose used riparian areas and hardwood stands in higher proportion than their availability in winter (P < 0.05). Open habitats (conifer-lichen woodlands, bogs and fens, burned forest, and barren areas) were used in lower proportion than their availability. These data may provide the basis for developing habitat suitability maps for Moose in late winter across central Labrador.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".