The North American Gap Ungulates Must Migrate Physically and Legally: Elk as a Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans have tracked elk hoof prints in North America since ancient times, recognizing the significance of these migratory ungulates in culture, mythology, dietary value, and utility. As migratory ungulates, elk respond to changes in their environment by migrating to and from their summer and winter ranges. Today, elk migrations continue across the jurisdictional boundary of the northern United States and southern Canada, spreading ecological and economic benefits with each track they make. Unfortunately, ungulate migration is an “endangered phenomenon” due to loss of connectivity and loss of habitat. While the United States and Canada have acknowledged the importance of, and entered into agreements governing, transboundary issues, there is not an international legal framework for migratory ungulates like elk. Moreover, both the United States and Canada recognize the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, as reflected in U.S. federal agency policies, and in Canadian constitutional provisions, statutes, and agreements with First Nations. Furthermore, both countries are integrating Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge into transboundary water management contexts, but have yet to fully realize the value of this inclusive approach in transboundary wildlife management. To address this regulatory gap, the United States, Canada, Native American Tribes, and First Nations should establish a governing body for wildlife management. The uniquely positioned Tribes and First Nations along the border should be included because of their historical connection to elk and the knowledge they have acquired over thousands of years. The inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in transboundary water agreements has proven successful. Building on those principles, ungulates—like water—move across borders, and Indigenous Peoples possess unique knowledge that should be incorporated into any agreements concerning these animals as well. This proposed structure will help ensure the lasting conservation of elk for future generations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".