Conservation status of caribou in the western mountains of Canada: Protections under the species at risk act, 2002-2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In April 2014, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) reviewed the status of caribou in the western mountains of Canada, in keeping with the ten-year reassessment mandate under the Species at Risk Act. Assessed as two ‘nationally significant’ populations in 2002, COSEWIC revised the conservation units for all caribou in Canada, recognising eleven extant Designatable Units (DUs), three of which -- Northern Mountain, Central Mountain, and Southern Mountain -- are found only in western Canada. The 2014 assessment concluded that the condition of many subpopulations in all three DUs had deteriorated. As a result of small and declining population sizes, the Central Mountain and Southern Mountain DUs are now recognised as endangered. Recent declines in a number of Northern Mountain DU subpopulations did not meet thresholds for endangered or threatened, and were assessed as of special concern. Since the passage of the federal Species at Risk Act in 2002, considerable areas of habitat were managed or conserved for caribou, although disturbance from cumulative human development activities has increased during the same period. Government agencies and local First Nations are attempting to arrest the steep decline of some subpopulations by using predator control, maternal penning, population augmentation, and captive breeding. Based on declines, future developments and current recovery effects, we offer the following recommendations: 1) where recovery actions are necessary, commit to simultaneously reducing human intrusion into caribou ranges, restoring habitat over the long term, and conducting short-term predator control, 2) carefully consider COSEWIC’s new DU structure for management and recovery actions, especially regarding translocations, 3) carry out regular surveys to monitor the condition of Northern Mountain caribou subpopulations and immediately implement preventative measures where necessary, and 4) undertake a proactive, planned approach coordinated across jurisdictions to conserve landscape processes important to caribou conservation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".