The long road to protecting critical habitat for species at risk: The case of southern mountain woodland caribou
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Identifying habitat that is essential to the recovery of species at risk, known as critical habitat, is a major focus of species at risk legislation, yet there has been little research on the degree to which these areas are protected. Here, we first review the provisions for protecting critical habitat on non‐federal lands within Canada's Species at Risk Act (SARA). Next, we use the declining southern mountain population of woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus caribou ) in British Columbia, Canada as a case study to show that identification of critical habitat does not guarantee its protection on non‐federal lands. Our analyses show that 909 km 2 of critical habitat identified on provincial lands were logged in 5 years after it was legally identified under SARA. Existing provincial legislation and policies have provided incomplete protection of caribou critical habitat, and Canada's federal government has yet to exercise authority under SARA that could protect these areas. In the absence of nondiscretionary protection under provincial legislation, a combination of alternative mechanisms, involving all levels of government, Indigenous people, and industry, will be essential to protect critical habitat and help recover species at risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".