Distribution and Movements of Woodland Caribou on Disturbed Landscapes in West-Central Manitoba: Implications for Forestry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest operations have been implicated in adversely impacting woodland caribou populations. In order to improve on existing forestry mitigation plans on caribou ranges, the distribution and movements of the Kississing-Naosap herd on disturbed landscapes in west-central Manitoba was examined across a variety of scales. The results indicate a hierarchical pattern of selection by woodland caribou, with seasonal differences. Caribou avoided disturbance across all scales, and selected for mature coniferous habitat types. At a finer scale they selected for summer paths with greater arboreal lichen cover and winter paths with greater visibility. Caribou also selected areas further into cover, away from forest edges. Based on these results, I recommend that leave areas within operating areas be composed of a mosaic of mature jack pine, treed muskeg, and spruce cover types, and at least 1 km in width. I also recommend harvesting larger blocks, obliterating roads post-harvest, and encouraging the regeneration of coniferous stands.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".