MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055488650 · doi:10.1139/z09-088

Foods and nutritional components of diets of black bear in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado

2009· article· en· W2055488650 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roger A. Baldwin, Louis C. Bender

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyNational parkUrsusPopulationHerbaceous plantProductivityEcologyAnimal scienceFecesWildlife

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used scat analysis to determine diets and relative nutritional values of diets for black bears ( Ursus americanus Pallas, 1780) in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, from 2003 to 2006, and compared foods consumed and nutritional components to identify important sources of fecal gross energy (GE), crude fat (CF), and fecal nitrogen (FN) in annual and seasonal diets. Patterns of use of food classes followed typical seasonal patterns for bears, although use of animal matter was among the highest reported (>49% annually). Use of animal matter increased after spring, although crude protein levels in bear diets were always >25%. GE was typically lowest for grasses and other herbaceous plants and highest for ants and ungulates; FN was strongly positively related to most animal sources, but negatively correlated with vegetative matter; and CF showed the strongest positive relationship with ungulates and berries, with the latter likely influenced by the presence of seeds. Compared with historic data (1984–1991), contemporary diets included substantially greater prevalence of anthropogenic foods, which likely contributed to increases in size, condition, and productivity of the contemporary bear population. Management strategies are needed to increase quantity and quality of natural foods while minimizing dependence on anthropogenic sources.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations43
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207