MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109212277 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.21977

Estimating the Audibility of Industrial Noise to Denning Polar Bears

2020· article· en· W3109212277 on OpenAlexaff
Megan A. Owen, Anthony M. Pagano, Sheyna Wisdom, BJ Kirschhoffer, Ann E. Bowles, Caitlin O’Neill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Fish and Wildlife FoundationBrigham Young UniversityUniversity of California, Santa Cruz
KeywordsUrsus maritimusDisturbance (geology)Noise (video)Environmental scienceArcticHabitatWoodland caribouPolarPhysical geographyGeographyEcologyComputer scienceGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Oil and gas activities on Alaska's North Slope overlap spatially with polar bear (Ursus maritimus) maternal denning habitat and temporally with the peri‐partum and emergence periods. Noise associated with these activities can be substantial and concerns regarding the effects on polar bears have been acknowledged. But the secluded and ephemeral nature of subnivean maternal dens renders the measurement of behavioral and physiological responses of bears to noise exposure challenging, except for rare cases when disturbance‐prompted den abandonment has been documented. These limitations, coupled with the uncertainty associated with the synergistic effects of anthropogenic activities on bears in a rapidly changing Arctic, prompt the need to develop predictive models of disturbance to ensure management guidelines effectively mitigate disturbance. Towards this end, we characterized noise propagation from 9 sources (2 aircraft, 2 over‐tundra tracked vehicles, 4 wheeled on‐road vehicles, and humans walking) used to support industrial activities around artificial snow dens near Milne Point, Alaska, USA, in March–April 2010. We built dens in 4 configurations to mimic variability in den roof thickness and to evaluate differences in noise propagation from when the den was closed compared to being open, similar to den emergence. We integrated these data with an existing polar bear audiogram and developed models to predict auditory‐detection probabilities as a function of distance from the den. Within a closed den, aircraft had high probabilities (detection probability ≥75%) of being detected by polar bears at distances ≤1.6 km and ground‐based sources had high probabilities of detection at distances ≤0.8 km. On average, closed dens reduced noise levels by 15 decibels (dB) relative to open dens. Our findings indicate that although polar bear snow dens effectively attenuate acoustic sound pressure levels, noise from some industrial support vehicles was likely to be detected farther from dens than previously documented. These results reinforce the importance of maintaining buffer zones around polar bear dens to minimize the potential for den disturbance. © 2020 The Wildlife Society.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207