MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167966151 · doi:10.1890/07-2089.1

Predicting 21st‐century polar bear habitat distribution from global climate models

2009· article· en· W2167966151 on OpenAlexaff
George M. Durner, David C. Douglas, Ryan M. Nielson, Steven C. Amstrup, Trent L. McDonald, Ian Stirling, Mette Mauritzen, Erik W. Born, Øystein Wiig, Eric DeWeaver, Mark C. Serreze, Stanislav Belikov, Marika M. Holland, James A Maslanik, Jon Aars, David A. Bailey, Andrew E. Derocher

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Monographs · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrsus maritimusArcticHabitatSea iceClimate changeEnvironmental sciencePolarPolar nightBathymetryGeographyOceanographyPhysical geographyClimatologyEcologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Projections of polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sea ice habitat distribution in the polar basin during the 21st century were developed to understand the consequences of anticipated sea ice reductions on polar bear populations. We used location data from satellite‐collared polar bears and environmental data (e.g., bathymetry, distance to coastlines, and sea ice) collected from 1985 to 1995 to build resource selection functions (RSFs). RSFs described habitats that polar bears preferred in summer, autumn, winter, and spring. When applied to independent data from 1996 to 2006, the RSFs consistently identified habitats most frequently used by polar bears. We applied the RSFs to monthly maps of 21st‐century sea ice concentration projected by 10 general circulation models (GCMs) used in the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, under the A1B greenhouse gas forcing scenario. Despite variation in their projections, all GCMs indicated habitat losses in the polar basin during the 21st century. Losses in the highest‐valued RSF habitat (optimal habitat) were greatest in the southern seas of the polar basin, especially the Chukchi and Barents seas, and least along the Arctic Ocean shores of Banks Island to northern Greenland. Mean loss of optimal polar bear habitat was greatest during summer; from an observed 1.0 million km2 in 1985–1995 (baseline) to a projected multi‐model mean of 0.32 million km2 in 2090–2099 (−68% change). Projected winter losses of polar bear habitat were less: from 1.7 million km2 in 1985–1995 to 1.4 million km2 in 2090–2099 (−17% change). Habitat losses based on GCM multi‐model means may be conservative; simulated rates of habitat loss during 1985–2006 from many GCMs were less than the actual observed rates of loss. Although a reduction in the total amount of optimal habitat will likely reduce polar bear populations, exact relationships between habitat losses and population demographics remain unknown. Density and energetic effects may become important as polar bears make long‐distance annual migrations from traditional winter ranges to remnant high‐latitude summer sea ice. These impacts will likely affect specific sex and age groups differently and may ultimately preclude bears from seasonally returning to their traditional ranges.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations357
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological MonographsSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207