MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2205983973 · doi:10.7557/2.35.2.3635

Peary caribou distribution within the Bathurst Island Complex relative to the boundary proposed for Qausuittuq National Park, Nunavut

2015· article· en· W2205983973 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kim G. Poole, Anne Gunn, Jack Wierzchowski, Morgan Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsGovernment of NunavutIsland Health
FundersParks Canada
KeywordsNational parkAbundance (ecology)ArcticGeographyRange (aeronautics)OceanographyEcologyPhysical geographyGeologyArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How caribou (Rangifer tarandus), including Peary caribou (R. t. pearyi), use their annual ranges varies with changes in abundance. While fidelity to some seasonal ranges is persistent, use of other areas changes. Consequently, understanding changes in seasonal distribution is useful for designing boundaries of protected areas for caribou conservation. A case in point is the proposed Qausuittuq (Northern Bathurst Island) National Park for Bathurst Island and its satellite islands in the High Arctic of Canada. Since 1961, Peary caribou have been through three periods of high and low abundance. We examined caribou distribution and composition mapped during nine systematic aerial surveys (1961–2013), unsystematic helicopter surveys (1989–98), and limited radio-collaring from 1994–97 and 2003–06. While migration patterns changed and use of southern Bathurst Island decreased during lows in abundance, use of satellite islands, especially Cameron Island for winter range, persisted during both highs and lows in abundance. The northeast coast of Bathurst Island was used to a greater extent during the rut and during summer at low abundance. We suggest that Park boundaries which include Cameron Island and the northeast coast of Bathurst Island will be more effective in contributing to the persistence of Peary caribou on the Bathurst Island Complex.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207