MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952317487

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

2019· article· en· W2952317487 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
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