Spatial dynamics of the rise and fall of caribou (<i>Rangifer</i><i>tarandus</i>) in Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the relationship between abundance and distribution is central to ecology but may require broad-scale observations, especially for long-lived, mobile animals like caribou (Rangifer tarandus (L., 1758)). We tested the link between demography and spatial ecology of Newfoundland caribou, coincident with their numerical growth (1980s, 1990s) and decline (2000s). We analysed site fidelity, rate of movements, timing of migration, and population organization from telemetry observations of more than 600 adult females. Site fidelity was consistent across herds, intensifying near the onset of calving and peaking in late summer, a cycle that may reflect selection for postpartum security. Late-summer fidelity was stronger in the 1980s than 1990s, a trend that reversed itself during the 2000s. Weekly movements were lower in the 2000s, but with no clear differences between the 1980s and 1990s. Timing of migration changed: in the 2000s, spring migration of the Buchans herd occurred 3 weeks earlier and autumn migration 3 weeks later compared with the previous decade, the reversal of a 40-year trend. Herd affinities, revealed by fuzzy membership coefficients, diminished by the 2000s. These changes are consistent with the hypothesis of limitation by summer forage competition. Space use represents a useful gauge of numerical changes in caribou.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".