MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537047476 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v127i2.1442

Temporal variation in food habits of the American Black Bear (<em>Ursus americanus</em>) in the boreal forest of northern Ontario

2013· article· en· W1537047476 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Derrick A. Romain, Martyn E. Obbard, James L. Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryTrent UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsUrsusForagingWildlifeBorealGeographyTaigaBlack spruceEcologyVegetation (pathology)ForestryBiologyDemographyArchaeologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used scat analysis to investigate temporal variation in the food habits of American Black Bears (Ursus americanus) in the boreal forest of northern Ontario. Specifically, we examined whether there was a seasonal shift in foraging over three years (1990–1992) and which foods, if any, varied in occurrence among years. American Black Bears ate foods ranging from green vegetation in the spring to ants in mid-summer and berries and nuts in late summer and fall. Late summer berry forage, especially blueberries (Vaccinium spp.), varied greatly among years. American Black Bears in northern Ontario consumed a variety of foods opportunistically. Understanding how American Black Bears in northern Ontario exploit food resources and how these food items vary among years can provide insights into demographic processes and help wildlife managers better anticipate changes in the structure of the harvest of American Black Bears and in human–bear conflict levels. In northern Ontario, forest management practices that increase the availability of early successional species would be beneficial to American Black Bear populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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