Danger in the nursery : impact on birds of tar sands oil development in Canada's boreal forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report discussed the impacts of tar sands oil development in Canada's boreal forest. The Canadian boreal forest is one of the world's most important breeding areas for migratory birds, with 1 billion to 3 billion individual birds from at least 300 species known to regularly breed there. Approximately 30 per cent of all shorebirds and 30 per cent of all landbirds that breed in the United States and Canada do so within the boreal. The section of the boreal forest that sits over the tar sands region of Alberta is rapidly being fragmented by oil development. As much as 34 to 66 per cent of the Canadian boreal forest, up to 438 million acres, may no longer be intact. In Alberta, 86 per cent of the boreal forest is no longer considered intact, thus putting valuable bird habitat at risk. This report first provided background information on Canada's boreal forest as North America's nesting bird destination. It then reviewed the dangers created by tar sands operations for boreal birds. It noted that tar sands mining destroys boreal bird habitat; tailings ponds trap birds in oil waste; tar sands drilling fragments bird habitat; tar sands water withdrawals harm wetlands and water habitats; and tar sands toxins weaken and kill boreal birds. The impacts of tar sands pipelines and refineries were also discussed along with global warming impacts on boreal birds and the path forward for habitat protection. It was recommended that Alberta should implement a moratorium on new tar sands lease sales, and that Alberta and Canada should halt project approvals until long-term mitigation strategies and conservation measures are in place. refs., tabs., figs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".