MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016250847 · doi:10.1002/ece3.6233

Comparing sea ice habitat fragmentation metrics using integrated step selection analysis

2020· article· en· W3016250847 on OpenAlexafffund
Brooke A. Biddlecombe, Erin M. Bayne, Nicholas J. Lunn, David McGeachy, Andrew E. Derocher

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Evolution · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Wildlife FederationQuark ExpeditionsWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsSea iceEnvironmental scienceHabitatArcticSea ice concentrationHabitat fragmentationEcologyPhysical geographyGeographyArctic ice packOceanographyGeologySea ice thicknessBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Habitat fragmentation occurs when continuous habitat gets broken up as a result of ecosystem change. While commonly studied in terrestrial ecosystems, Arctic sea ice ecosystems also experience fragmentation, but are rarely studied in this context. Most fragmentation analyses are conducted using patch‐based metrics, which are potentially less suitable for sea ice that has gradual changes between sea ice cover, than distinct “long‐term” patches. Using an integrated step selection analysis, we compared the descriptive power of a patch‐based metric to a more novel metric, the variation in local spatial autocorrelation over time. We used satellite telemetry data from 39 adult female polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in Hudson Bay to examine their sea ice habitat using Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 data during sea ice breakup in May through July from 2013–2018. Spatial autocorrelation resulted in better model fits across 64% of individuals, although both metrics were more effective in describing movement patterns than habitat selection. Variation in local spatial autocorrelation allows for the visualization of sea ice habitat at complex spatial and temporal scales, condensing a targeted time period of habitat that would otherwise have to be analyzed daily.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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