MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A review of population-based management of Southern mountain caribou in BC

2016· review· en· W2495419180 on OpenAlexaff
Stan Boutin, Evelyn H. Merrill

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationPredatorPopulationGeographyEcologyHabitatWildlife managementPopulation growthBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decline in Mountain caribou in BC over the past decades has resulted in extensive basic and applied research to guide caribou management by understanding the proximate and ultimate causes of the decline. At the top of the list is high predation rates brought about by human alteration of habitat and the subsequent alteration of predator-prey dynamics. We reviewed population-based management experiments undertaken in BC to recover caribou populations. These included primary prey (moose) reduction, lethal predator control, maternal penning, translocations, and supplemental feeding. Moose reduction by liberalized harvests has led to wolf population reduction and stabilization of treated caribou herds. Translocations have had limited success and finding source populations for future attempts will be a challenge. Maternity pens are producing promising results but their efficacy is strongest in relatively small populations and best results appear to occur when combined with predator control in areas surrounding the pens. Predator control experiments have just begun and results are forthcoming. Overall, no single population-based management tool has increased caribou populations. It is recommended that multiple levers need to be applied in combination on an experimental basis going forward.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→