Aerial surveys suggest long‐term stability in the seasonally ice‐free Foxe Basin (Nunavut) polar bear population
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Significant information gaps exist regarding the status of polar bears, especially with respect to the impacts of climate change, across large portions of the Arctic. To obtain an updated abundance estimate for the Foxe Basin population, we conducted comprehensive aerial surveys during the 2009 and 2010 ice‐free seasons, when bears are confined to land. We sampled with mark‐recapture distance sampling protocols on inland and coastal transects and surveyed small islands and remnant ice floes. We observed 816 and 1,003 bears in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Although detection functions differed substantially between years, estimates were consistent between analytical methods and years. Averaging four estimates (two from each year) yielded 2,585 (2,096–3,189) bears, which is similar to an estimate from the 1990s. This result, along with robust cub production, suggests a stable and healthy population despite deteriorating sea ice conditions. Collectively, this and other recent on‐land surveys provide a framework for implementing aerial surveys elsewhere. Although aerial surveys do not yield estimates of vital rates or population growth, they enable more rapid and frequent monitoring than mark‐recapture. Integrating them in long‐term monitoring programs will require consideration of ancillary data to infer status and facilitate setting harvest levels.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it