Are polar bear habitat resource selection functions developed from 1985–1995 data still useful?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greenhouse-gas-induced warming in the Arctic has caused declines in sea ice extent and changed its composition, raising concerns by all circumpolar nations for polar bear conservation.Negative impacts have been observed in three well-studied polar bear subpopulations. Most subpopulations, however, receive little or no direct monitoring, hence, resource selection functions (RSF) may provide a useful proxy of polar bear distributions. However, the efficacy of RSFs constructed from past data, that is, reference RSFs, may be degraded under contemporary conditions, especially in a rapidly changing environment.We assessed published Arctic-wide reference RSFs using tracking data from adult female polar bears captured in the Beaufort Sea. We compared telemetry-derived seasonal distributions of polar bears to RSF-defined optimal sea ice habitat during the period of RSF model development, 1985-1995, and two subsequent periods with diminished sea ice: 1996-2006 and 2007-2016. From these comparisons, we assessed the applicability of the reference RSFs for contemporary polar bear conservation.In the two decades following the 1985-1995 reference period, use and availability of optimal habitat by polar bears declined during the ice melt, ice minimum, and ice growth seasons. During the ice maximum season (i.e., winter), polar bears used the best habitat available, which changed relatively little across the three decades of study. During the ice melt, ice minimum, and ice growth seasons, optimal habitat in areas used by polar bears decreased and was displaced north and east of the Alaska Beaufort Sea coast. As optimal habitat diminished in these seasons, polar bears expanded their range and occupied greater areas of suboptimal habitat.Synthesis and applications: Sea ice declines due to climate change continue to challenge polar bears and their conservation. The distribution of Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears remained similar during the ice maximum season, so the reference RSFs developed from data collected >20 years ago continue to accurately model their winter distribution. In contrast, reference RSFs for the ice transitional and minimum seasons showed diminished predictive efficacy but were useful in revealing that contemporary polar bears have been increasingly forced to use suboptimal habitats during those seasons.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".