Geographical assignment of polar bears using multi-element isoscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O) in polar bear hair from > 1000 individuals, sampled from across much of the Canadian Arctic and sub-Arctic, to test the ability of stable isotopic profiles to 'assign' bears to (1) predefined managed subpopulations, (2) subpopulations defined by similarities in stable isotope values using quadratic discriminant analysis, and (3) spatially explicit, isotopically distinct clusters derived from interpolated (i.e. 'kriged') isotopic landscapes, or 'isoscapes', using the partitioning around medoids algorithm. A four-isotope solution provided the highest overall assignment accuracies (~80%) to pre-existing management subpopulations with accuracy rates ranging from ~30-99% (median = 64%). Assignment accuracies of bears to hierarchically clustered ecological groups based on isotopes ranged from ~64-99%. Multivariate assignment to isotopic clusters resulted in highest assignment accuracies of 68% (33-77%), 84% (47-96%) and 74% (53-85%) using two, three and four stable isotope groups, respectively. The resulting spatial structure inherent in the multiple stable isotopic compositions of polar bear tissues is a powerful forensic tool that will, in this case, contribute to the conservation and management of this species. Currently, it is unclear what is driving these robust isotopic patterns and future research is needed to evaluate the processes behind the pattern. Nonetheless, our isotopic approach can be further applied to other apex mammalian predators under threat, such as the large felids, providing that isotopic structure occurs throughout their range.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".