MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1561909087 · doi:10.1111/ecog.01260

Home ranges in moving habitats: polar bears and sea ice

2015· article· en· W1561909087 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie Auger‐Méthé, Mark A. Lewis, Andrew E. Derocher

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaDalhousie University
FundersAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsUrsus maritimusHome rangeSea iceRange (aeronautics)PolarEcologyForagingHabitatSpace (punctuation)Ice capsPhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceGeographyComputer scienceBiologyMeteorologyGlacierPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Home range size estimates are often used to assess the amount of space required for animals to perform the activities essential for their survival and reproduction. However, in moving environments, traditional home range estimates may be ill suited to this task. In particular, traditional home range estimates are inaccurate representations of the space required by polar bears Ursus maritimus . The sea ice is the prime foraging platform of polar bears, and estimating the amount of ice encountered by bears may provide a better approximation of space use. We develop a technique to make these estimates. Our results confirm that polar bears use more space than terrestrial carnivores to find the resources and conditions they require. We also show that the traditional geographic home range can underestimate both the movement of bears and the amount of space encountered. Moreover, area of ice encountered increased with ice drift, indicating that bears living on highly mobile ice might be exposed to higher energetic costs, and potentially larger energetic gains, than bears inhabiting more stable ice. The methods and concepts presented here can serve as a foundation for new approaches to study the space use of the many species living in moving environments.

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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations50
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207