MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074739755 · doi:10.1644/12-mamm-a-230.1

Effects of chemical immobilization on the movement rates of free-ranging polar bears

2013· article· en· W2074739755 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gregory W. Thiemann, Andrew E. Derocher, Seth G. Cherry, Nicholas J. Lunn, Elizabeth Peacock, Vicki Sahanatien

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsWorld Wildlife Fund CanadaAlberta Environment and Protected AreasUniversity of AlbertaGovernment of NunavutYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBureau of Ocean Energy ManagementAlberta InnovatesKillam TrustsChurchill Northern Studies CentreParks CanadaArcticNetQuark ExpeditionsCanadian Wildlife FederationNunavut Wildlife Research TrustU.S. Department of the Interior
KeywordsUrsus maritimusJuvenileWildlifeWildlife managementPredationJumpingRange (aeronautics)Home rangeAerial surveyGeographyBayEcologyBiologyFisheryEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyHabitatCartographyArctic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The capture and handling of free-ranging animals is an important tool for wildlife research, conservation, and management. However, live capture may expose individual animals to risk of injury, impairment, or mortality. The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) is a species of conservation concern throughout its range and physical mark-recapture techniques have formed the basis of polar bear research and harvest management for decades. We examined movement patterns of polar bears postcapture to measure their recovery from chemical immobilization and determine whether captured bears experienced prolonged effects that would affect individual fitness. Adult female (n = 61) and juvenile (n = 13) polar bears in 3 Canadian subpopulations were captured during the course of other studies using a combination of tiletamine hydrochloride and zolazepam hydrochloride delivered via remote injection from a helicopter. Bears were fitted with satellite-linked global positioning system collars and we used 3 individual-based metrics to assess their recovery from immobilization: time to move 50 m; time to move 100 m; and time to reach a baseline movement rate threshold (km/day) derived from each individual's movements in a fully recovered state (i.e., 30–60 days postcapture). There were no differences in recovery rate metrics across years, age classes, or between females with cubs of different ages. When compared across subpopulations, only the time to move 50 m differed, being shortest in the southern Beaufort Sea. Bears captured on land during the ice-free period in western Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin were more variable in their response to capture than were those handled on the sea ice of the Beaufort Sea, but in all 3 areas, bears showed gradual increases in movement rates. Movement rates indicative of recovery were often reached 48 h after capture and 51 (69%) of 74 bears appeared to be fully recovered in ≤3 days. Consistent with preliminary work on chemical immobilization of polar bears, there was no relationship between drug dose and rate of recovery. Our results indicated that polar bears captured in different locations, seasons, and life-history stages recovered predictably from chemical immobilization in a time frame that is unlikely to affect individual fitness.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations45
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MammalogySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207