Long-term fluctuations of a caribou population revealed by tree-ring data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a dendroecological approach that involved examination of debarking lesions (trampling scars) produced by caribou (Rangifer tarandus) hooves on surficial roots and low branches of conifers to assess caribou activity in the summer range of the Rivière George caribou herd in northeastern Quebec-Labrador over the last 100 years. We deduced changes in caribou activity from the age-frequency distributions of trampling scars in three widely spaced (>100 km) old-growth conifer stands in the Rivière George area. We used the fluctuating patterns in age distributions, described by residuals of the log-linear regression, as an index of the number of trampling scars with time. This index indicated that caribou activity at the three sites followed a general decreasing trend from the turn of the last century to around 1950. There were two stages of rapid decline, around 1905-1915 and 1940, separated by a minor increase in the 1920-1930s. A sustained increase occurred from the 1950s to the 1980s. A comparison with survey and historical data for caribou suggested that these fluctuations in this common signal of activity at the three sites resulted mainly from fluctuations in caribou abundance that occurred throughout the 20th century in northeastern Quebec-Labrador. The increase in caribou activity during the 1920-1930s suggested by the frequency of trampling scars is not reported in the historical record. Caribou trampling scars on conifers may offer a new opportunity to assess large-scale spatial and temporal population trends of caribou in subarctic and boreal zones.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".