MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389490663 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2023-0121

Estimating the effects of roads on migration: a barren-ground caribou case study

2023· article· en· W4389490663 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
John Boulanger, Robin Kite, Mitch Campbell, Jason Shaw, David C. Lee, Stephen N. Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsNunavut Research InstituteGovernment of Nunavut
FundersNunavut Wildlife Management BoardGovernment of NunavutWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A challenge for management of wildlife species is the assessment of the effect of roads on migration. We developed models to estimate the spatial (zone of influence (ZOI)) and temporal (delays in migration) effects of roads, and test whether road closures reduced delays in migration. We analyzed collar (2011–2019) and road survey data from two barren-ground caribou ( Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus (Borowski, 1780)) herds to assess the impact of a 171 km mine road that bisects their migration corridor. We estimated ZOIs of 16–17 km prior to crossing the road during 2018 and 2019, and 3.0 km after crossing. Estimates of mean delay were 4.3 and 2.5 days for 2018 and 2019, which were reduced by 28%–68% (1.2–1.7 days) if roads were closed when caribou were within the ZOI. In 2017–2018, when the road was extended 64 km north, caribou were 12% less likely to deflect north around the road, therefore increasing delays. Road surveys indicated aggregation of caribou prior to crossing the road, with few caribou observed after crossing, a finding supported by collar data. Our methods can estimate the spatial and temporal effects of roads for any wildlife species and assess mitigation strategies in reducing delays in migration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→