MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046807582 · doi:10.1139/z10-053

Coping with human disturbance: spatial and temporal tactics of the brown bear (<i>Ursus arctos</i>)

2010· article· en· W2046807582 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jodie Martin, Mathieu Basille, Bram Van Moorter, Jonas Kindberg, Dominique Allainé, Jon E. Swenson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges ForskningsrådNaturvårdsverketAgence Nationale de la RechercheNorges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet
KeywordsUrsusDisturbance (geology)Home rangeHabitatEcologyGrizzly BearsUrsus maritimusSpatial ecologyRange (aeronautics)BiologyPopulationArctic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In human-dominated landscapes, species with large spatial requirements, such as large carnivores, have to deal with human infrastructure and activities within their home ranges. This is the case for the brown bear ( Ursus arctos L., 1758) in Scandinavia, which is colonizing more human-dominated landscapes, leading inevitably to an overlap between their home ranges and anthropogenic structures. In this study, we investigated fine-scale habitat selection by brown bears to examine how they deal with this potential disturbance. Using Global Positioning System (GPS) data, we studied (i) habitat selection of female brown bears within their home range and (ii) the influence of diurnal variation in human disturbance on fine-scale habitat use. As expected, females selected habitats within their home range that provided abundant food resources and minimized human-caused disturbance. In addition, our temporal analysis of habitat selection revealed an avoidance of disturbed areas and a selection of slopes by bears during periods of highest human activities, i.e., during daylight hours. We clearly demonstrate the importance of considering the fluctuations in human activity when studying habitat selection, especially at fine spatial scales. Failing to do so may considerably reduce the power to detect important fine-scale habitat-selection behaviors.

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 score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations223
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207