Terrain Features and Architecture of Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Resting Burrows and Reproductive Dens on Arctic Tundra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burrowing species rely on subterranean and subnivean sites to fulfill important life-history and behavioral processes, including predator avoidance, thermoregulation, resting, and reproduction. For these species, burrow architecture can affect the quality and success of such processes, since characteristics like tunnel width and chamber depth influence access by predators, thermal insulation, and energy spent digging. Wolverines (Gulo gulo) living in Arctic tundra environments dig burrows in snow during winter for resting sites and reproductive dens, but there are few published descriptions of such burrows. We visited 114 resting burrows and describe associated architectural characteristics and non-snow structure. Additionally, we describe characteristics of 15 reproductive den sites that we visited during winter and summer. Although many resting burrows were solely excavated in snow, most incorporated terrain structures including cliffs, talus, river shelf ice, thermokarst caves, and stream cutbanks. Burrows typically consisted of a single tunnel leading to a single chamber, though some burrows had multiple entrances, branching tunnels, or both. Tunnels in resting burrows were shorter than those in reproductive dens, and resting chambers were typically located at the deepest part of the burrow. Reproductive dens were associated with snowdrift-forming terrain features such as streambeds, cutbanks on lake edges, thermokarst caves, and boulders. Understanding such characteristics of Arctic wolverine resting and reproductive structures is critical for assessing anthropogenic impacts as snowpack undergoes climate-driven shifts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".