MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DENNING OF POLAR BEARS AND CONDITIONS OF SEA ICE

2000· article· en· W2179857941 on OpenAlexaff
Steven H. Ferguson, Mitchell K. Taylor, Aqqalu Rosing‐Asvid, Erik W. Born, François Messier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Northwest TerritoriesLakehead UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrsus maritimusSea iceFacultativeGeographyLatitudePhysical geographyOceanographyEcologyBiologyGeologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined shelter and maternity dens used by 97 adult female polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to conditions of sea ice. Obligate use of maternity dens for pregnancy, birth, and lactation varied little with latitude or area. In contrast, timing of facultative use of shelter dens switched from autumn in the southern area (<70°N) to winter in the northern area (>75°N). For the southern area, 13 of 16 female polar bears used shelter dens in autumn versus winter (median dates of entry and exit, 11 September and 2 November; total = 56 days), whereas in the northern area, 11 of 17 bears used shelter dens in winter versus autumn (median dates, 24 December and 2 March; total = 65 days). Difference in facultative use of shelter dens was associated with conditions of sea ice. Southern regions had no sea ice when polar bears used shelter dens. In contrast, northern areas had more constant ice conditions that included presence of ice throughout the year. Southern regions seem to have greater primary productivity and more seals as a result of a pronounced seasonal cycle of annual ice. Polar bears in northern areas responded to the more constant ice conditions and less productive environment with use of shelter dens during the period with lowest seal accessibility.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

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

Citations38
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MammalogySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207