MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084688877 · doi:10.1890/130276

The changing anthropogenic diets of American black bears over the past century in Yosemite National Park

2014· review· en· W2084688877 on OpenAlexaff
John B. Hopkins, Paul L. Koch, Jake M. Ferguson, Steven T. Kalinowski

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsUrsusNational parkForagingGeographyEcologyEnvironmental protectionArchaeologyBiologyPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) stable isotopes derived from the tissues of American black bears ( Ursus americanus ) to estimate the proportion of human‐derived foodstuffs and food waste (“human foods”) in the diets of human food‐conditioned bears over the past century in Yosemite National Park, located in central–eastern California. Our goal was to understand how the foraging ecology of bears responded to changing management strategies. We found that the proportion of human foods increased in bear diets when park personnel and visitors fed bears intentionally in 1923–1971, remained relatively high and constant after artificial feeding areas were closed, and declined drastically in 1999–2007, following a $500 000 annual government appropriation used to mitigate human–bear conflicts in the park. This reduction in the amount of human foods in bear diets suggests that Yosemite managers have been successful in reducing the availability of human foods to bears. Yosemite bears currently consume human foods in the same proportion as they did in 1915–1919. This result indicates a notable management achievement in the park, considering that thousands of people visited Yosemite annually in the early 1900s while about four million people visit each year today.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations90
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Ecology and the EnvironmentSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207