MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2991752732 · doi:10.1101/865188

Room without a view – den construction in relation to body size in brown bears

2019· preprint· en· W2991752732 on OpenAlexaff
Shotaro Shiratsuru, Andrea Friebe, Jon E. Swenson, Andreas Zedrosser

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNaturvårdsverketAustrian Science FundMiljødirektoratetSvenska Jägareförbundet
KeywordsHibernation (computing)UrsusEconomic shortageEnergy expenditureEcologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyArchaeologyBiologyDemographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hibernation is an adaptive strategy to survive harsh winter conditions and food shortage. The use of well-insulated winter dens helps animals minimize energy loss during hibernation. Brown bears ( Ursus arctos ) commonly use excavated dens for hibernation. Physical properties of excavated dens, such as the amount of space between a bear and the inner wall, wall/roof thickness, and bedding materials, are expected to impact heat retention and energy conservation of bears. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of physical properties of excavated dens on energy conservation in hibernating bears. Our hypothesis was that bears excavate dens in a way to minimize heat loss and optimize energy conservation during hibernation. We predicted that physical properties of excavated dens would significantly affect the bears’ post-hibernation body condition. To test our hypothesis and prediction, we analyzed data collected from brown bears in Sweden with linear mixed effects models, examining (i) what factors affect den-excavation behavior and (ii) if physical properties of excavated dens affect post-hibernation body condition. We found that bears excavated a den cavity in relation to their body size, that older bears tended to excavate better-fitting den cavities compared to young bears, and that the physical properties of excavated dens did not significantly affect a bears’ post-hibernation body condition. Older bears excavated better-fitting den cavities, suggesting a potentially experience-based shift with age in den-excavation behavior and an optimum cavity size relative to a bear’s body size. The strong year effect shown by the most parsimonious model for post-hibernation body condition suggests that variations in physical properties of excavated dens are possibly negligible, compared to the large annual variations in biotic and abiotic factors affecting pre-hibernation body condition and heat loss during hibernation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicBat Biology and Ecology Studies→French-language works237,207→