Influence of maternity penning on the success and timing of parturition by mountain caribou (<i>Rangifer tarandus caribou</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive conservation actions that require the capture and handling of individual animals are common, but the implications for both survival and reproduction are often not studied. Across North America, most populations of woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus caribou (Gmelin, 1788)) are Threatened or Endangered. Maternity penning, where pregnant females are held in an enclosure until the calf is less vulnerable to predation, is one conservation action that is designed to increase population growth. Few studies have reported the influence of maternity penning on the occurrence or timing of parturition and the implications for reproduction. We quantified parturition success and dates of penned and free-ranging caribou within the Klinse-Za population of caribou found across east-central British Columbia, Canada. Parturition dates were identified using daily observations for penned caribou ( n = 41) and estimated dates for free-ranging caribou ( n = 27) generated using statistical modelling of GPS collar data. We related parturition outcomes to a range of ecological and environmental variables. We found that the occurrence and date of parturition did not differ between penned and free-ranging caribou. For all monitored animals there was an earlier calving date during years of higher snowfall and warmer winter weather. Our results suggested that maternity penning, a potentially invasive conservation action, did not increase or decrease the probability or date of parturition for this study population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".