MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952317487

Would it be possible for every Canadian to own a polar bear

2019· article· en· W2952317487 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hannah Mahoney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interdisciplinary Science Topics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrsus maritimusPolarFantasyPopulationGeographyRange (aeronautics)DemographyMeteorologySociologyEngineeringArtSea ice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the common stereotype/fantasy that every Canadian owns and rides a polar bear and whether this would be possible in real life. The paper begins with a background on polar bear range and eating habits, and then goes on to discuss sources of food in Canada. It was assumed only everyone of driving age would own a polar bear, allowing a population of 2.99x10 7  polar bears. It would take either 9.02x10 5  cows, 2.3x10 6 hogs, or 7.4x10 8  chickens per day to feed that amount of bears. Using cows and chickens as the model animals, the amount of pasture needed to support that much food for a year is calculated to be 4.5x10 7  km 2 for cows, which is larger than the total landmass of Canada, and 2.7x10 8  km 2 for chickens. While the landmass of Canada could support the chickens, due to their waste and pollution, it is concluded that it would not be possible for every Canadian to own a polar bear.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interdisciplinary Science TopicsSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207