A body composition model to estimate mammalian energy stores and metabolic rates from body mass and body length, with application to polar bears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many species experience large fluctuations in food availability and depend on energy from fat and protein stores for survival, reproduction and growth. Body condition and, more specifically, energy stores thus constitute key variables in the life history of many species. Several indices exist to quantify body condition but none can provide the amount of stored energy. To estimate energy stores in mammals, we propose a body composition model that differentiates between structure and storage of an animal. We develop and parameterize the model specifically for polar bears (Ursus maritimus Phipps) but all concepts are general and the model could be easily adapted to other mammals. The model provides predictive equations to estimate structural mass, storage mass and storage energy from an appropriately chosen measure of body length and total body mass. The model also provides a means to estimate basal metabolic rates from body length and consecutive measurements of total body mass. Model estimates of body composition, structural mass, storage mass and energy density of 970 polar bears from Hudson Bay were consistent with the life history and physiology of polar bears. Metabolic rate estimates of fasting adult males derived from the body composition model corresponded closely to theoretically expected and experimentally measured metabolic rates. Our method is simple, non-invasive and provides considerably more information on the energetic status of individuals than currently available methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".