MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2162744011 · doi:10.1139/z10-072

A distance-based analysis of habitat selection by American black bears (Ursus americanus) on the Bruce Peninsula, Ontario, Canada

2010· article· en· W2162744011 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Martyn E. Obbard, Melissa B. Coady, Bruce A. Pond, James A. Schaefer, Frank G. Burrows

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryTrent UniversityParks Canada
FundersAmerican Society of Mammalogists
KeywordsUrsusDeciduousEcologyHabitatPopulationGeographyHome rangeRange (aeronautics)National parkBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of their wide-ranging habits, conserving large carnivores such as American black bears ( Ursus americanus Pallas, 1780) often depends on understanding habitat needs beyond the boundary of protected areas. We studied habitat selection by black bears in the vicinity of Bruce Peninsula National Park, Ontario — a small, isolated population whose persistence appears dependent on habitat on lands outside the Park. We used an approach based on Euclidean distances to document seasonal habitat selection at two spatial scales and to identify candidate habitat types for protection. Adult females selected dense mixed forests to establish home ranges within the population range, whereas subadults and yearlings selected dense deciduous forests. Within home ranges, adults selected dense mixed forest in spring–summer and dense deciduous forest in late summer – fall. Subadults selected dense deciduous forest, marsh, dense mixed forest, and water during the spring–summer and avoided developed lands and roads. Yearlings selected dense mixed forest, dense deciduous forest, and sparse forests in spring–summer and dense deciduous forest and dense mixed forest in late summer – fall. The selection of dense deciduous and dense mixed forest stands, especially at the broader scale, suggests that strategies to ensure persistence of this isolated population should focus on protecting the integrity of these stands.

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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations20
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→