Polar bear predatory behaviour reveals seascape distribution of ringed seal lairs
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 Ringed seal ( Pusa hispida ) breeding distribution has been extensively studied across near‐shore habitats, but has received limited attention at a seascape scale due to the difficulty in accessing offshore sea ice environments. Employing highly visible predation attempts by polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) on ringed seals in subnivean lairs observed by helicopter, the spatial relationship between predatory behaviour and ringed seal breeding habitat was examined. Resource selection functions were used to determine the relative probability of predation attempts on ringed seals in lairs as a function of habitat during a period of low ringed seal natality (2004–2006). Ringed seal pup kill locations were compared between years of low (2003–2006) and high (2007–2011) natality to assess the effect of reproductive output on habitat use. During years of low natality, polar bear hunting attempts were more likely in near‐shore fast ice, and pup kills were observed predominately in fast ice (fast = 65 %, pack = 29 %, P = 0.002) at a median distance of 36 km from shore. In years of high natality, pup kills were observed farther from shore (median = 46 km, P = 0.03), and there was no difference in the proportion of observations in fast ice and pack ice (fast = 43 %, pack = 52 %, P = 0.29). These results suggest that the facultative use of adjacent offshore pack ice by breeding ringed seals may be influenced by natality. This study illustrates how documenting the behaviour of a predator can facilitate insight into the distribution of a cryptic prey.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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