Cougar (<i>Puma concolor</i>) predation on Northern Mountain Caribou (<i>Rangifer tarandus caribou</i>) in central British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) populations are sympatric with Cougars (Puma concolor) in only a few areas, primarily in western Canada. Records of Cougar–Caribou interactions are limited and no published accounts describe Cougar predation on the shallow-snow, terrestrial-lichen-eating Northern Mountain Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), referred to as Designatable Unit (DU) 7 by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. In 2018 and 2019, two incidents of confirmed Cougar predation on radio-collared Caribou were documented in the declining Itcha-Ilgachuz subpopulation in west-central British Columbia. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first published record of Cougar predation on DU7 Northern Mountain Caribou. Increased landscape disturbance and climate change may be increasing apparent competition between deer (Odocoileus spp.), feral Horses (Equus ferus caballus), and Caribou, leading to Cougar predation in areas of Caribou range where it previously has not been documented. Cougar predation may become a conservation concern, as declining Caribou herds are susceptible to any increased predation pressure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".