MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114181755 · doi:10.14430/arctic71605

Apparent Collapse of the Peary Caribou (<i>Rangifer tarandus pearyi</i>) Population on Axel Heiberg Island, Nunavut, Canada

2020· article· en· W3114181755 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Conor D. Mallory, Matthew Fredlund, Mitch Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Nunavut
FundersEurostarsNunavut Wildlife Management BoardNunavut General Monitoring PlanEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaGovernment of NunavutMcGill University
KeywordsArcticRange (aeronautics)GeographyBeringiaPopulationEndangered speciesRefugium (fishkeeping)EcologyPhysical geographyHabitatBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In spring 2019, we conducted a comprehensive abundance and distribution survey for Peary caribou (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) and muskox (Ovibos moschatus) on Axel Heiberg Island, Nunavut, Canada. Although much of Axel Heiberg Island is rugged and extensively glaciated, areas east of the Princess Margaret mountain range have high productivity given the latitude and have supported relatively large numbers of Peary caribou and muskoxen. This region of the island has been previously identified as a potential High Arctic refugium. The last island-wide survey, in 2007, estimated 4237 muskoxen (95% confidence interval [CI] [3371:5325]) and 2291 Peary caribou (95% CI [1636:3208]); based on our 2019 results, it appears that muskox numbers have been stable on Axel Heiberg Island since then. Using distance sampling and density surface models, we estimated 3772 muskoxen (95% CI [3001:4742]) on Axel Heiberg Island during our 2019 survey. In contrast, Peary caribou, which is listed as an endangered species under the Canadian Species at Risk Act, appear to have declined dramatically from the 2007 estimate. During the 2019 survey, we observed only six Peary caribou and could not generate an island-wide estimate. Abrupt declines in numbers are characteristic of the species and are usually related to poor winter conditions such as dense snowpack or extreme weather events that result in widespread ground-fast icing. However, the limited monitoring information available at the northern extent of Peary caribou range presents major challenges to our understanding of the mechanisms leading to this near total absence of approximately 20% of range-wide Peary caribou numbers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207