MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314631305 · doi:10.2307/3802682

Declines in Populations of Woodland Caribou

2003· article· en· W2314631305 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip D. McLoughlin, Elston Dzus, Bob Wynes, Stan Boutin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodland caribouGeographyWoodlandEcologyBiologyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We summarize the demography of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) inhabiting 6 ranges in northeast Alberta, Canada, from 1993 to 2002. Among ranges, mean annual survival of radiomarked adult females averaged 0.88 (range: 0.86-0.93). Predation by wolves (Canis lupus) and other predators was implicated as the most common cause of death for adult caribou in northeast Alberta. Pregnancy rates (90-100%) and calf production (75-95%) were relatively high in all caribou ranges; however, mean annual recruitment was near or below 20 calves per 100 cows in most ranges (x = 17.1, range = 11.4-22.7). Caribou populations in 3 ranges have declined at average rates exceeding those that would lead to a 50% decline from initial population size over 3 generations; another population is declining at half this rate. Populations of caribou in 2 ranges appear to be stable, declining marginally since inception of our study. The current distribution, intensity, amount, and type of human activity in and near caribou ranges is likely compromising the integrity of caribou habitat. Treatment of declines will require new land-use guidelines that promote 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations197
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207