MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955124522 · doi:10.1002/ece3.5401

Are polar bear habitat resource selection functions developed from 1985–1995 data still useful?

2019· article· en· W2955124522 on OpenAlexfundno aff
George M. Durner, David C. Douglas, Todd C. Atwood

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Evolution · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Geological SurveyEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of AlbertaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsUrsus maritimusArcticSea iceHabitatPolarEnvironmental sciencePolar nightBeaufort seaClimate changeArctic ice packPhysical geographyBeaufort scaleClimatologyGeographyEcologyOceanographyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and EvolutionSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207