MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170285425 · doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyab041

Are tissue samples obtained via remote biopsy useful for fatty acid-based diet analyses in a free-ranging carnivore?

2021· article· en· W3170285425 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Melissa P. Galicia, Gregory W. Thiemann, Markus Dyck, Steven H. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaGovernment of NunavutYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNunavut General Monitoring PlanEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaGovernment of Nunavut
KeywordsPredationBiologyCarnivorePopulationAdipose tissueFatty acidHunting seasonZoologyEcologyEndocrinologyBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fundamental knowledge on free-ranging animals has been obtained through capture-based studies; however, these may be logistically intensive, financially expensive, and potentially inconsistent with local cultural values. Genetic mark–recapture using remote tissue sampling has emerged as a less invasive alternative to capture-based population surveys but provides fewer opportunities to collect samples and measurements for broader ecological studies. We compared lipid content, fatty acid (FA) composition, and diet estimates from adipose tissue of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) obtained from two collection methods: remote biopsies (n = 138) sampled from helicopters and hunter-collected tissue (n = 499) from bears harvested in Davis Strait and Gulf of Boothia, Nunavut, 2010 – 2018. Lipid content of adipose tissue was lower in remote biopsies than harvest samples likely because remote biopsies removed only the outermost layer of subcutaneous tissue, rather than the more metabolically dynamic innermost tissue obtained from harvest samples. In contrast, FA composition was similar between the two collection methods with relatively small proportional differences in individual FAs. For diet estimates in Davis Strait, collection method was not a predictor of prey contribution to diet. In Gulf of Boothia, collection method was a predictor for some prey types, but the differences were relatively minor; the rank order of prey types was similar (e.g., ringed seal; Pusa hispida was consistently the primary prey in diets) and prey proportions differed by < 6% between the collection methods. Results from both methods showed that diets varied by geographic area, season, year, age class, and sex. Our study demonstrates that adipose tissue from remote biopsy provides reliable estimates of polar bear diet based on FA analysis and can be used to monitor underlying ecological changes in Arctic marine food webs.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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