Conservation of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada : an uncertain future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caribou (Rangifer tarandus (L., 1758)) play a central role in the ecology and culture of much of Canada, where \nthey were once the most abundant cervid. Most populations are currently declining, and some face extirpation. In southern \nCanada, caribou range has retreated considerably over the past century. The ultimate reason for their decline is habitat alterations by industrial activities. The proximate causes are predation and, to a lesser extent, overharvest. The most southerly \npopulations of “Mountain” caribou are at imminent risk of extirpation. Mountain caribou are threatened by similar industrial \nactivities as Boreal caribou, and face increasing harassment from motorized winter recreational activities. Most populations \nof “Migratory Tundra” caribou are currently declining. Although these caribou fluctuate in abundance over decades, changing harvest technologies, climate change, increasing industrial development and human presence in the North raise doubts \nover whether recent declines will be followed by recoveries. The Peary caribou (Rangifer tarandus pearyi J.A. Allen, 1902), \na distinct subspecies endemic to Canada’s High Arctic, has suffered drastic declines caused by severe weather, hunting and \npredation. It faces an increasing threat from climate change. While some questions remain about the reasons for the decline \nof Migratory Tundra caribou, research has clearly identified several threats to the persistence of “Boreal”, Mountain, and \nPeary caribou. Scientific knowledge, however, has neither effectively influenced policies nor galvanized public opinion sufficiently to push governments into effective actions. The persistence of many caribou populations appears incompatible with \nthe ongoing pace of industrial development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.011 | 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".