MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Echoes of the hunt? An inter-continental comparison of patterns of growth and determinants of size of brown bears in Canada and Sweden.

2022· preprint· en· W4206485968 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andreas Zedrosser, Marc Cattet, Jon E. Swenson, Gordon Stenhouse

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographyReproductionPopulation densityPopulationEcologyGeographyBiologyHabitatLife history theoryPopulation growthLife history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparing life history traits among populations that have been separated genetically for several hundred thousand years, but live in similar habitats on different continents, may help us understand how ecological and anthropomorphic factors shape life histories. We compared patterns of growth in body length and mass, and the influence of population density, habitat quality (NDVI), and reproduction on age-specific length and mass of male and female brown bears between Alberta, Canada, and Sweden. We found that Swedish females were significantly smaller in both length and mass than Alberta females. Swedish females also reached primiparity earlier and at a smaller mass and length. However, there were no continental differences in the patterns of growth in males. We found strong positive effects of NDVI, but only weak negative effects of population density on female mass and length in both areas. Generally, especially mass of Alberta females was more strongly affected by NDVI and density than for Swedish females. Reproduction had stronger negative effects on female mass in Alberta than in Sweden. We found no effects of NDVI and population density on male mass and body length in both areas. The larger variation in female growth and size between the areas, in contrast to males, may be related to differences in female reproductive investment due to differences in population trends, i.e., earlier reproduction in increasing populations or populations below carrying capacity, or to different selection pressures in the past, potentially due to human persecution. Swedish females exhibited characteristics typical of increasing populations, whereas Alberta females exhibited characteristics typical of stable or decreasing populations. The difference in reproduction investment means that Swedish bears can be harvested at higher rates, whereas Alberta bears must be managed more conservatively.

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 score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→