Managing fire for woodland caribou in Jasper and Banff National Parks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) populations in Jasper (JNP) and Banff National Parks (BNP) have declined since the 1970s, coincident with reduced fire activity in both parks, relative to historic levels. Some researchers have suggested that long periods without fire may cause habitat deterioration for woodland caribou, primarily by reducing available lichen forage. We examined winter habitat selection by woodland caribou at coarse and fine scales based on GPS-derived telemetry data and used models that included stand origin (decade), topography, and several stand structure variables that are related to time since fire, to explore relationships among caribou, lichen, and fire history. Based on the relationships illustrated by the models, we assessed how fire management could be applied to caribou conservation in JNP and BNP. At a coarse scale, caribou selected old forest (> 75 years) in landscapes that have likely experienced less frequent wildfire. While the abundance of Cladonia spp. influenced caribou use at fine scales, a preference for areas with older trees within stands was also significant. We conclude that short-term habitat protection for woodland caribou in JNP and BNP likely requires fire exclusion from caribou range.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".