Development of a model ensemble to predict Peary caribou populations in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the field of biological conservation, mathematical modeling has been an indispensable tool to advance our understanding of population dynamics. Modeling rare and endangered species with complex ecophysiological tools can be challenging due to the constraints imposed by data availability. One strategy to overcome the mismatch between what we are trying to learn from a modeling exercise and the available empirical knowledge is to develop statistical models that tend to be more parsimonious. In the present study, we introduce a spatially explicit modeling framework to examine the strength and nature of the relationships of snow density and vegetation abundance with Peary caribou ( Rangifer tarandus pearyi ) populations. Peary caribou are vital to the livelihood and culture of High Arctic Inuit communities, but changing climatic conditions and anthropogenic disturbances may affect the integrity of this endemic species population. Owing to an estimated decline of over 35% during the last three generations, a recent assessment by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada assigned a Threatened status to Peary caribou in 2015. Recognizing the uncertainty typically associated with the selection of the best subset of explanatory variables and their optimal functional relationship with the response variable, we examined four models across six island complexes (Banks, Axel Heiberg, Melville, Bathurst, Mackenzie King, and Boothia) of the Arctic Archipelago and formulated two ensembles to synthesize their predictions into averaged Peary caribou population distributions. Our analysis showed that an ensemble strategy with region‐specific weights displayed the highest performance and most balanced error across the six island complexes. The causal linkages between snow, vegetation abundance, and Peary caribou did manifest themselves with the models examined, but the noise‐to‐signal ratios of the corresponding regression coefficients were generally high and there were instances where they were not discernible from zero. We also present a sensitivity analysis exercise that elucidates the influence of the observation/imputation errors on the model‐training phase, thereby highlighting the importance of assigning realistic error estimates that will not hamper the identification of important cause–effect relationships. Our study identifies critical augmentations of the available scientific knowledge that necessitate to design the optimal management actions of Peary caribou populations across the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".