MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968904635 · doi:10.2981/wlb.00020

Den abandonment and transitional day bed use by black bears <i>Ursus americanus</i> in Newfoundland

2014· article· en· W1968904635 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathaniel D. Rayl, Todd K. Fuller, John F. Organ, John E. McDonald, Robert D. Otto, Shane P. Mahoney

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Newfoundland and Labrador
FundersSafari Club International Foundation
KeywordsUrsusGeographyHibernation (computing)Abandonment (legal)Flooding (psychology)EcologyHome rangePhysical geographyHabitatDemographyBiologyState (computer science)Population

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of day beds for extended periods during the transition into and out of the physiological state of hibernation has been documented in many bear populations, but has never been quantifi ed. Additionally, den abandonment by black bears Ursus americanus has rarely been observed at northern latitudes except after den visits by researchers. In three areas on the northern island of Newfoundland, where male and female black bears spent an average of 158 and 178 d denning, respectively, we identified den sites and extended‐use day beds (occupied continuously for 6–26 d) remotely using GPS collars, and here provide the first systematic description of the use of these day beds by bears. We documented den abandonment in 6 (9%; 3 F, 3 M) of 67 bear‐winters (6 [14%] of 44 radio‐collared bears) and the use of extended‐use transitional day beds in 16 (24%) of 67 bear‐winters (15 [34%] of 44 radio‐collared bears, 8 F, 7 M). In 5 of 10 instances bears left their fall day beds on days with &gt; 15 mm of rain (mean = 28.2 mm, range = 15.6–63.6 mm), which was more than would be expected by chance (p &lt; 0.01). We had more than one year of denning data for 17 bears, 6 (35%) of which reused den sites in diff erent years. Further, we observed some bears using day bed and den sites interchangeably. Though we hypothesized that environmental (flooding) or anthropogenic disturbance (researcher‐, forestry‐related, or recreational) may have played a role in den abandonment, we found no such relationships, nor was there a difference in the rate of abandonment or day bed use between male and female bears. We could not assess the eff ects of microhabitat attributes, condition, or reproductive status, but acknowledge that these factors may have played a role in den changes.

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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207