Interpretations of Polar Bear (<em>Ursus maritimus</em>) Tracks by Inuit Hunters: Inter-rater Reliability and Inferences Concerning Accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to their tracking experience in pursuing Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus), Inuit hunters could provide non-invasive estimates of Polar Bear characteristics from tracks, and Polar Bear monitoring programs could benefit from Inuit input. We determined i) inter-rater reliability of estimates of the sex, age, and size of Polar Bears, and estimates of the age of tracks made by a group of nine Inuit hunters who interpreted 78 tracks; ii) we made preliminary comparisons of sex and size estimates with conventional (scientific) estimates; iii) we catalogued the Polar Bear hunting experience and track interpretation techniques of nine Inuit hunters; and iv) we explored relationships between hunting experience and the ability to interpret tracks. The group of Inuit hunters made reliable and consistent estimates of Polar Bear sex, age, and size, as well as estimates of age of track (after data from one participant was excluded). Although our comparisons are based on small samples, our findings suggest that Inuit hunters may be accurate in estimating the sex of Polar Bears (74.42% agreement with genetic determinations) and the size of Polar Bears from their tracks. Our data indicate shared tracking techniques used by hunters may explain high agreement in making specific estimates, while individual hunting experience and particular methods used to interpret tracks may lead to inter-rater reliability and accuracy in interpreting tracks.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".