MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139164653 · doi:10.14430/arctic614

Population Viability of Barren-ground Grizzly Bears in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories

2003· article· en· W2139164653 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Mitchell K. Taylor, H. Dean Cluff, Robert J. Gau, Robert Mulders, Ray L. Case, François Messier

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanGovernment of Northwest TerritoriesGovernment of Nunavut
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNunavut Wildlife Management BoardUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsUrsusGrizzly BearsPopulationGeographyPopulation sizePopulation declinePopulation projectionEcologyQuarter (Canadian coin)Population growthDemographyBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We modelled probabilities of population decline as a function of annual kill for a population of barren-ground grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) inhabiting Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, Canada. Our results suggest that the population is at risk of decline, especially if annual removal rates increase from the 42-year mean of 13.4 bears per year. Adding six bears to the mean annual kill results in a greater than 40% chance of a decrease by one-quarter in population size over the next 50 years, compared to a 10% chance with the current level of human-caused mortality. Additional mortalities may result from increased problem behaviour by bears at mine sites or hunt and exploration camps, given recent increases in human activity in the region, and may already be present as unreported mortality. We believe any increase in current harvest quotas would considerably lessen conservation prospects for the population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207