Using Visual Observations to Compare the Behavior of Previously Immobilized and Non-Immobilized Wild Polar Bears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During 17 field seasons between 1973 and 1999, we conducted a long-term study of the behavior of undisturbed wild polar bears in Radstock Bay, southwest Devon Island, Nunavut. In a subset of 11 seasons (6 spring and 5 summer) between 1975 and 1997, we used three different drug combinations to chemically immobilize a small number of adult and subadult polar bears on an opportunistic basis and applied a temporary dye mark so that individual bears could be visually reidentified. We then used multinomial logistic regression to compare the behavior of 35 previously immobilized bears of five different demographic classes (sex, age, and reproductive status) to the behavior of non-immobilized bears of the same demographic classes in the same years and seasons. During the first two days after immobilization, bears slept significantly more and spent less time hunting than did bears that had not been immobilized. However, previously immobilized bears returned to the same behavioral patterns and proportion of total time spent hunting as non-immobilized bears within two days and no further negative behavioral effects were detected in the following 21 d. We visually confirmed successful hunting by three adult bears within 0.4 to 2.1 d of being immobilized, all of which went on to make additional kills within the following 24 h. The return to normal behavior patterns, including the ability to hunt successfully, within 48 h of immobilization appears consistent with the hypothesis that polar bears do not experience longer-term behavioral effects following brief chemical immobilization for conservation and management purposes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".