Le potentiel de compétition apparente entre l’orignal (Alces alces) et le caribou forestier (Rangifer tarandus caribou) varie le long d’un gradient latitudinal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À la suite d’une coupe forestière, les parterres en régénération peuvent subir un enfeuillement favorable à l’orignal. L’accroissement des populations de loups qui s’en suit affecte alors les populations du caribou forestier. Ce projet vise à évaluer si la contribution de la coupe forestière à cette compétition apparente varie selon un gradient latitudinal. Nous avons modélisé la sélection d’habitat d’orignaux, de loups et de caribous. Après la prise en compte de l’âge de la coupe, l’enfeuillement des parterres diminuait avec la latitude. La sélection des parterres de coupe par les orignaux et les loups augmentait en fonction de leur enfeuillement. Les caribous évitaient les coupes, particulièrement celles riches en feuillus. La cooccurrence de l’orignal et du loup dans les coupes augmente donc en fonction de l’enfeuillement. Ainsi, la contribution de la coupe forestière à la compétition apparente dans le système orignal-loup-caribou devrait diminuer vers le nord de la forêt boréale.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".