Variation in the seasonal selection of resources by woodland caribou in northern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conservation planning for species of concern or importance can be aided by resource selection functions (RSFs) that identify important areas or attributes. Models that can be interpreted biologically and provide reasonable predictive capacity may best be based on data from individuals grouped into seasonal selection strategies for particular geographical areas or similarities in topographical and vegetative associations. We used logistic regression, the information–theoretic approach, satellite imagery, and locational data (n = 31 females; 16 803 locations) from global positioning system (GPS) collared woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus caribou (Gmelin, 1788)) to model resource selection by animals during calving, summer, fall, breeding, winter, and late-winter seasons. Higher variation in resource use corresponded to times when caribou and their young were most susceptible to predation or when food resources were limited. Even with multiple selection strategies, caribou followed a general progression from higher to lower elevation habitats from calving and summer to late winter. Caribou selected against or completely avoided the burned–disturbed vegetation class in every season except summer. We incorporated RSFs with a raster geographic information system to create selection landscapes. We validated selection landscapes using withheld GPS data (n = 6077), 50 known calving sites, and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Selection models and final selection landscapes performed well in validating use locations of woodland caribou in all seasons (all P < 0.003) and in predicting known calving sites (P < 0.001). When seasonal selection strategies are identified and models are coupled with validation, RSFs are effective tools to assist in conservation planning.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".