MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Mine Development on Woodland Caribou Rangifer Tarandus Distribution

2007· article· en· W2176077793 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jackie N. Weir, Shane P. Mahoney, Brian McLaren, Steven H. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Biology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaLakehead UniversityGovernment of Newfoundland and Labrador
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodland caribouIce calvingGeographyDisturbance (geology)EcologyAbundance (ecology)WoodlandHerdEnvironmental sciencePredationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of the effect of mining developments on caribou Rangifer tarandus is fragmentary. We examined the impact of the Hope Brook gold mine, southwestern Newfoundland, on the La Poile woodland caribou herd on a section of their year-round range. We examined the impact of the mine on caribou distribution during three phases of mine activity (pre-disturbance, construction and open-pit mining and underground mine and mill operation) in five seasons (winter, late winter, pre-calving, calving and autumn). Aerial surveys were conducted on a monthly basis from September 1985 to July 1991. Following initiation of the mine construction, caribou abundance increased with distance from the mine site in all seasons, and caribou avoided areas within 4 km of the site in most seasons. Within 6 km of the mine centre, group size and the number of caribou decreased as mine activity progressed in late winter, pre-calving and calving seasons. Although the impact of the mine was most prominent in the pre-calving and calving seasons, caribou responded to mine disturbance in all seasons. This highlights the importance of evaluating the year-round impact of human-induced environmental change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207