MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764164718 · doi:10.1515/mammalia-2016-0051

Autumn food habits of the brown bear Ursus arctos in the Golestan National Park: a pilot study in Iran

2017· article· en· W2764164718 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmood Soofi, Ali Turk Qashqaei, Achyut Aryal, Sean C. P. Coogan

Bibliographic record

VenueMammalia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrsusNational parkMast (botany)VineGeographyForestryBiologyHorticultureEnvironmental healthArchaeologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Food consumed by brown bears in the Golestan National Park in Iran was analyzed during autumn 2011. We identified 22 food items in 61 scats, with the most important food items being hawthorn fruit, cherry plum fruit and chestnut-leaved oak hard mast, based on importance value (IV) estimates of 26.4%, 18.1% and 12.9%, respectively. The overall bear diet (percent digestible dry matter) was composed of 77.9% soft mast (i.e. fruit), 21.3% hard mast and small proportions of other vegetation (0.3%) or animal matter (0.4%). One anthropogenic food was identified (vine grape) and was of minor importance (IV=0.2%).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMammaliaSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207