Fencing Large Predator-Free and Competitor-Free Landscapes for the Recovery of Woodland Caribou in Western Alberta: An Ineffective Conservation Option
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, boreal woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) are listed as “threatened” throughout their range due directly and indirectly to habitat loss. In western Alberta, in order to recover the Little Smoky boreal caribou population, the provincial government announced a plan to create a 100-km2-fenced enclosure that would encompass part of the caribou population range. Within the enclosure, all predators and other ungulate species will be killed. The fenced area will be dedicated entirely to the farming of caribou, with the intent of releasing weaned calves into adjacent areas with continued intensive wolf (Canis lupus) killing throughout the region. Industrial activities will be allowed to continue within the enclosure. In this review, we assess the government’s proposed program on the basis of questions related to the long-term recovery and sustainability of the caribou population, and the conservation and welfare of wildlife populations and individuals. We conclude that this program is unlikely to safeguard the future of this caribou population, will jeopardize wildlife communities inside and outside the fenced enclosure, and will cause harm to wild populations and individual animals. We recommend an alternative habitat conservation program which is ecologically justified over the long term, and invite the scientific community to object to the implementation of the government’s proposed Little Smoky caribou recovery program.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".