MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1480467552 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v118i2.920

Movements of Subadult Male Grizzly Bears, <em>Ursus arctos</em>, in the Central Canadian Arctic

2004· article· en· W1480467552 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Robert J. Gau, Philip D. McLoughlin, Ray L. Case, H. Dean Cluff, Robert Mulders, François Messier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanGovernment of Northwest Territories
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUrsusGrizzly BearsHome rangeGeographyArcticRange (aeronautics)Adult maleUrsus maritimusEcologyHabitatBiologyDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between May 1995 and June 1999, we equipped eight subadult male (3-5 yrs old) Grizzly Bears (Ursus arctos) with satellite radio-collars within a study area of 235,000 km2, centred 400 km northeast of Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada. Subadult male annual home ranges were extraordinarily large (average = 11,407 km2, SE = 3849) due, in part, to their movement's occasional linear directionality. We believe their long-range linear movements may reflect some individuals tracking the migration of Caribou (Rangifer tarandus). Seasonal daily movement patterns were similar to adult males that were previously reported. The areas used by these bears are the largest ranges reported for any Grizzly Bears and the scale of their movements may put individual bears in contact with humans even when developments are hundreds of kilometres from the central home range of an animal.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations44
Published2004
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207