Foraging strategies by omnivores: are black bears actively searching for ungulate neonates or are they simply opportunistic predators?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Omnivores feed on animals with dynamic distributions and on plants with static distributions. The search tactics they adopt will not only define the risk for the targeted prey, but also for other prey that may be consumed when encountered. The potential impact of omnivores on the dynamics of multi‐prey systems thus depends on resource selection and on the tactics used to find their prey. We present an approach that can clarify the foraging decisions of omnivores by combining analyses of habitat selection, local residency time, and interpatch movements. We use this framework to evaluate whether predation by omnivorous black bears on ungulate neonates resulted from an active search or from incidental encounters. We monitored 12 bears, 22 forest‐dwelling caribou, and 36 moose during calving seasons. We estimated the spatial patterns in relative occurrence probability of ungulate neonates using Resource Selection Functions (RSFs). We also mapped plant abundance from vegetation surveys. RSF were then built to assess the link between bear distribution and the distribution of these three food types (vegetation, moose calves, caribou fawns). We further evaluated the search tactic used by bears that led to this spatial dependency by exploring patterns of residency times and interpatch movements. Bears did not select areas with a high probability of encounter with neonates, but selected areas with abundant vegetation. Surprisingly, bears displayed shorter residency times in vegetation‐rich areas. The selection for vegetation‐rich areas was therefore achieved by moving preferentially, but frequently, between areas offering abundant vegetation. Such frequent interpatch movements could result in high rates of fortuitous encounters with neonates, even if bears are not actively searching for them. To mitigate the impacts of forest harvesting on threatened caribou populations, vegetation‐rich areas selected by bears (e.g. roadsides) should be segregated from large patches of mature conifer forest suitable for caribou.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it