MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024104569 · doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyaa047

Brown bear den characteristics and selection in eastern Transylvania, Romania

2020· article· en· W3024104569 on OpenAlexafffund
Ulysse Faure, Csaba Domokos, Agathe Leriche, Bogdan Cristescu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersEuroNatur StiftungInternational Association for Bear Research and ManagementJohns Hopkins UniversityColumbus Zoo and AquariumBernd Thies-StiftungUniversity of Cape TownZoologische Gesellschaft FrankfurtClaude Leon FoundationAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsFoothillsHabitatUrsusGeographyPopulationAbiotic componentEcologyCartographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dens are important for species that need to survive and reproduce during harsh winters. Brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Romania, listed by the European Union as a population of concern, use dens for several months each year. To date, few quantitative assessments of denning habitat have been carried out for this population or others in Europe. In 2008–2013 and 2015–2017, we used local knowledge and telemetry data from brown bears fitted with GPS collars to identify 115 winter dens and eight open ground nests used by bears in eastern Transylvania, Romania. We located most dens in mountainous areas (64%) and fewer in foothills (36%). Den entrances in mountainous areas were significantly narrower than entrances in foothills, likely due to the need for reduced thermal loss during more severe winters at higher elevations. We selected seven habitat characteristics (abiotic and biotic) and human-related covariates associated with known locations of dens and open nests to identify potential brown bear denning habitat using maximum entropy modeling. We found that terrain ruggedness was the single most important factor when predicting bear denning habitat. The habitat map derived from this study can be used in the future to safeguard bear denning areas from potential human disturbances.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MammalogySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207