Quantitative Support for a Subjective Fatness Index for Immobilized Polar Bears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Adequate stores of body fat are essential for survival and reproduction of polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ). However, polar bear body fat levels can be difficult to quantify in the field. For >30 years, biologists have subjectively estimated relative fatness of immobilized polar bears by assigning individuals a rating from 1 to 5, with 1 being leanest and 5 most obese. Although previous studies suggested this fatness index (FI) rating accurately reflects large‐scale differences in body condition, its relationship to more quantitative measures of condition has not been explored. We compared the FI rating of individual polar bears in western Hudson Bay and the Beaufort Sea to 2 quantitative measures of body condition: the Quetelet Index (ratio of mass to length 2 ) and the relative lipid content of adipose tissue. We found a significant relationship between FI rating and both Quetelet Index values and adipose lipid content. Our data demonstrate that the FI rating accurately reflects overall body condition, regardless of polar bear age, sex, or nutritional phase. We suggest that continued field use of the FI rating could provide valuable information on ecological effects of large‐scale environmental change on polar bear populations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".