MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140879034 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.250

Grizzly bear population vital rates and trend in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, Montana

2011· article· en· W2140879034 on OpenAlexaff
Richard D. Mace, Daniel W. Carney, Tonya Chilton‐Radandt, Stacy Courville, Mark A. Haroldson, Richard B. Harris, James J. Jonkel, Bruce N. McLellan, Michael Madel, Timothy L. Manley, Charles C. Schwartz, Christopher Servheen, Gordon B. Stenhouse, John S. Waller, Erik Wenum

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British Columbia
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsGrizzly BearsUrsusVital ratesFecundityLitterPopulationDemographyEcosystemEcologyGeographyBiologyEnvironmental sciencePopulation growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We estimated grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) population vital rates and trend for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), Montana, between 2004 and 2009 by following radio‐collared females and observing their fate and reproductive performance. Our estimates of dependent cub and yearling survival were 0.612 (95% CI = 0.300–0.818) and 0.682 (95% CI = 0.258–0.898). Our estimates of subadult and adult female survival were 0.852 (95% CI = 0.628–0.951) and 0.952 (95% CI = 0.892–0.980). From visual observations, we estimated a mean litter size of 2.00 cubs/litter. Accounting for cub mortality prior to the first observations of litters in spring, our adjusted mean litter size was 2.27 cubs/litter. We estimated the probabilities of females transitioning from one reproductive state to another between years. Using the stable state probability of 0.322 (95% CI = 0.262–0.382) for females with cub litters, our adjusted fecundity estimate (mx) was 0.367 (95% CI = 0.273–0.461). Using our derived rates, we estimated that the population grew at a mean annual rate of approximately 3% (λ = 1.0306, 95% CI = 0.928–1.102), and 71.5% of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations produced estimates of λ > 1.0. Our results indicate an increasing population trend of grizzly bears in the NCDE. Coupled with concurrent studies of population size, we estimate that over 1,000 grizzly bears reside in and adjacent to this recovery area. We suggest that monitoring of population trend and other vital rates using radioed females be continued. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations103
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207