Nocturnal and diurnal foraging behaviour of brown bears (<i>Ursus arctos</i>) on a salmon stream in coastal British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brown bears (Ursus arctos) have been reported to be primarily diurnal throughout their range in North America. Recent studies of black bears during salmon migration indicate high levels of nocturnal foraging with high capture efficiencies during darkness. We investigated the extent of nocturnal foraging by brown bears during a salmon spawning migration at Knight Inlet in coastal British Columbia, using night-vision goggles. Adult brown bears were observed foraging equally during daylight and darkness, while adult females with cubs, as well as subadults, were most prevalent during daylight and twilight but uncommon during darkness. We observed a marginal trend of increased capture efficiency with reduced light levels (day, 20%; night, 36%) that was probably due to the reduced evasive behaviour of the salmon. Capture rates averaged 3.9 fish/h and differed among photic regimes (daylight, 2.1 fish/h; twilight, 4.3 fish/h; darkness, 8.3 fish/h). These results indicate that brown bears are highly successful during nocturnal foraging and exploit this period during spawning migration to maximize their consumption rates of an ephemeral resource.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".