Effects of Mine Development on Woodland Caribou Rangifer Tarandus Distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".