MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154203050 · doi:10.14430/arctic975

Changes in Land Distribution of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay

2010· article· en· W2154203050 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Lindsay Towns, Andrew E. Derocher, Ian Stirling

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsAlberta Environment and Protected AreasUniversity of Alberta
FundersChurchill Northern Studies CentreArcticNetCanadian Wildlife FederationParks CanadaNunavut Wildlife Research Trust
KeywordsUrsus maritimusBayDistribution (mathematics)GeographyPopulationBreakupSea icePhysical geographyEcologyOceanographyBiologyDemographyGeologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the capture locations of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) on land in western Hudson Bay over 19 years (1986–2004) to assess temporal trends in the distribution of the population. We found that the distribution of bears of most age and sex groups shifted northward and eastward over the study. The causes of these shifts may be related to an altered population structure, changing environmental conditions, or a combination of both factors. Segregation by age, sex, and reproductive status persisted over time as found in earlier studies, but more females with young were within 5 km of the coast after 2001 than before. The distribution changes were correlated with the timing of sea-ice breakup, which now occurs, on average, about three weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago. While environmental conditions may have influenced polar bear distribution, the reduction in the number of large adult males along the coast may also have affected distribution patterns, allowing adult females to remain closer to the coast in more recent times.

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 score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207