Right paw foraging bias in wild black bear (<i>Ursus americanus kermodei</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using field observations of ~15 wild adult black bear (Ursus americanus kermodei) foraging on a salmon stream during two autumns on the central coast of British Columbia, we tested for laterality of forelimb use during lunging and during handling of salmon. Of 288 lunging events observed overall, 53% were non biased, 26% were right-limb biased, and 21% left-limb biased (p = .53 between left and right bias). Among six bears in which we could ascertain individual identity (182 lunging events), there was heterogeneity among individuals (p <.05) of which two were significantly right biased and one significantly left biased (p<.005). Of 186 carcass-handling (pick-up) events, 68% were right-pawed (p <.005) and there was no heterogeneity among five individually identifiable bears (p = .19). There was no forelimb laterality in adjustment of the prey in the mouth or in securing the prey to the substrate. This is the first report of task-specific behavioural lateralisation of a wild carnivore and is suggestive of a right bias (left-hemisphere dominance) in object manipulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".