MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884415858 · doi:10.2478/eko-2018-0011

Summer habitat selection of reindeer ( <i>Rangifer tarandus</i> ) governs on the unprotected forest and human interface in China

2018· article· en· W2884415858 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Wang, Peng Wang, Achyut Aryal, Xiuxiang Meng, Robert B. Weladji

Bibliographic record

VenueOchrana prírody Slovenska/Ekológia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesRenmin University of China
KeywordsHabitatEcologyPoachingGeographyPopulationDisturbance (geology)Vegetation (pathology)BiologyWildlife

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The habitat selection by animals depends on different environmental and anthropogenic factors such as the season, climate, and the life cycle stage. Here, we have presented the summer habitat selection strategy of reindeer ( Rangifer tarandus ) in the unprotected forest area from the northern arctic region of China. In summer 2012, we investigated a total of 72 used and 162 non-used plots in the reindeer habitat to record habitat variables. We found that the reindeer used significantly higher altitude, arbour availability, and vegetation cover area as compared to the non-used habitat variables. Principal component analysis (PCA) showed that six principal components (68.5%) were mainly responsible for the summer habitat selection of reindeer such as the slope position, concealment, anthropogenic dispersion, arbour species, distance from the anthropogenic disturbance area (> 1000 m) and water quality (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.12; P = 0.0001). The local people are largely dependent on forest product resource in these regions, such as bees herding, collecting wild vegetables, hunting, poaching, and grazing. These activities highly influenced the reindeer habitat and its behaviours. This study thus confirmed that reindeers are forced to choose poor habitat in unprotected forest area with high human disturbance or interference. These factors should be considered by the concerned authority or agency to manage reindeer population in the wild.

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)0.000
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOchrana prírody Slovenska/EkológiaSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207