Spectral Reflectance of Polar Bear and Other Large Arctic Mammal Pelts; Potential Applications to Remote Sensing Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spectral reflectance within the 350–2500 nm range was measured for 17 pelts of arctic mammals (polar bear, caribou, muskox, and ringed, harp and bearded seals) in relation to snow. Reflectance of all pelts was very low at the ultraviolet (UV) end of the spectrum (<10%), increased through the visual and near infrared, peaking at 40%–60% between 1100 and 1400 nm and then gradually dropped, though remaining above 20% until at least 1800 nm. In contrast, reflectance of snow was very high in the UV range (>90%), gradually dropped to near zero at 1500 nm, and then fluctuated between zero and 20% up to 2500 nm. All pelts could be distinguished from clean snow at many wavelengths. The polar bear pelts had higher and more uniform averaged reflectance from about 600–1100 nm than most other pelts, but discrimination was challenging due to variation in pelt color and intensity among individuals within each species. Results suggest promising approaches for using remote sensing tools with a broad spectral range to discriminate polar bears and other mammals from clean snow. Further data from live animals in their natural environment are needed to develop functions to discriminate among species of mammals and to determine whether other environmental elements may have similar reflectance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".