MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7066386390

Historical perspectives on woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) and landscape changes in the Prince Albert greater ecosystem

2010· dissertation· en· W7066386390 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersParks Canada
KeywordsWoodland caribouHabitatWoodlandLoggingTaigaLand coverNational parkBoreal
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In central Saskatchewan, boreal woodland caribou population declines have been documented.In order to contribute to the conservation efforts, historical changes in caribou distribution, land cover, and habitat quality were documented in the Prince Albert Greater Ecosystem (PAGE), Saskatchewan, for the period of 1950 to the present.To examine changes in caribou distribution, survey observations, incidental sightings and telemetry data were collated.To quantify landscape changes, land cover maps were created for 1966 and2006 using current and historic forest resources inventories, fire, logging, and roads data.Results indicate that woodland caribou are still found throughout the study area although their distribution has changed and their use of Prince Albert National Park is greafly limited.Transition probabilities and landscape composition analyses point to an ageing landscape for both the National Park and provincial crown land portions of the PAGE.In addition, increased logging and the development of extensive road and trail networks on provincial crown land has resulted in significant landscape fragmentation and reduced functional attributes of caribou habitat.To assess how these changes have affected the spatial arrangement of caribou habitat, a resource selection function (RSF) using GPS telemetry data and generalized estimating equations was developed.Results showed selection for treed muskeg and mature jack pine dominated stands and avoidance of hardwood, young coniferous stands, logging and linear features.The best model was applied to the 1966 and,2006vegetation maps to produce a predictive habitat map.Results showed greater area covered by high quality habitat in2006 however the high quality habitat was clustered.In 1966 there

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→