MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307717184 · doi:10.14288/1.0089772

Grizzly bear use of avalanche chutes in the Columbia Mountains, British Columbia

2009· article· en· W2307717184 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roger Karim Ramcharita

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyPhysical geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I examined spring season use of avalanche chutes by grizzly bears (Ursus arctos L.) in the Columbia Mountains, southeastern British Columbia. Sixty radio-collared grizzly bears were monitored between 1994 and 1998. The frequency of avalanche chute use, the selection of general habitat characteristics within avalanche chutes, and the selection of specific feeding and bedding sites within avalanche chutes by grizzly bears were documented. Fifty-four percent (366/672) of all grizzly bear radio-locations during the spring season (May 1 to July 31) were in avalanche chutes. The proportion of radio-locations in avalanche chutes for the 37 grizzly bears that accounted for > 10 spring season radiolocations each ranged between 20% and 90% (x = 56% ± 18% [mean ± SD]). This variation was not attributable to differences in use between sex or age classes. Within avalanche chutes, grizzly bears selected east and south aspects and areas dominated by grasses and forbs with minimal shrub abundance. Grizzly bears avoided very steep slopes but used all elevational parts of avalanche chutes - upper start zones, tracks, and lower runout zones. These patterns appeared to be tied to feeding site selection, because evidence of feeding was found at most telemetry locations investigated on the ground. Grizzly bears selected feeding sites on the basis of forage value and visual cover. Most feeding sites were characterized by high forage value and low visual cover, but weak positive interaction between these two factors indicated that grizzly bears also selected feeding sites with slightly lower forage values but high visual cover. Bed sites were found both in forest adjacent to avalanche chutes and directly within avalanche chutes. All bed sites found in forests adjacent to avalanche chutes were < 25 m from the forest / avalanche chute edge. The impact on grizzly bear use of avalanche chutes by two timber harvest activities was also examined. Grizzly bears avoided areas within avalanche chutes that were adjacent to cutblocks, possibly due to the removal of escape cover. In contrast, grizzly bears selected areas close to logging roads. Most logging roads traversing avalanche chutes in the study area had minimal vehicle traffic and were often situated close to areas with abundant food resources. I present suggestions for managing this important spring season habitat for grizzly bears.

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)0.000
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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207