Central Arctic Caribou and Petroleum Development: Distributional, Nutritional, and Reproductive Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We synthesize findings from cooperative research on effects of petroleum development on caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti) of the Central Arctic Herd (CAH). The CAH increased from about 6000 animals in 1978 to 23000 in 1992, declined to 18 000 by 1995, and again increased to 27 000 by 2000. Net calf production was consistent with changes in herd size. In the Kuparuk Development Area (KDA), west of Prudhoe Bay, abundance of calving caribou was less than expected within 4 km of roads and declined exponentially with road density. With increasing infrastructure, high-density calving shifted from the KDA to inland areas with lower forage biomass. During July and early August, caribou were relatively unsuccessful in crossing road/pipeline corridors in the KDA, particularly when in large, insect-harassed aggregations; and both abundance and movements of females were lower in the oil field complex at Prudhoe Bay than in other areas along the Arctic coast. Female caribou exposed to petroleum development west of the Sagavanirktok River may have consumed less forage during the calving period and experienced lower energy balance during the midsummer insect season than those under disturbance-free conditions east of the river. The probable consequences were poorer body condition at breeding and lower parturition rates for western females than for eastern females (e.g., 1988–94: 64% vs. 83% parturient, respectively; p = 0.003), which depressed the productivity of the herd. Assessments of cumulative effects of petroleum development on caribou must incorporate the complex interactions with a variable natural environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".