Digging deep: hoary marmots (<i>Marmota caligata</i>) use refuge burrows excavated by grizzly bears (<i>Ursus arctos</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hoary marmots ( Marmota caligata ) dig burrows in alpine meadows rich in forage as ready refuge from potential predators. Refuge burrows enable hoary marmots to engage in risk-sensitive foraging when they are away from more secure resting burrows on talus slopes. Grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) commonly excavate refuge burrows while hunting marmots, substantially changing the physical characteristics of the burrow by removing earthen material. However, it is not known if marmots continue to use excavated burrows as refuge. We opportunistically inspected 22 burrows excavated by grizzly bears for use by marmots at two sites in northwestern Canada. We found marmot feces at 10 of 22 excavated burrows, indicating that marmots continued to use these burrows after they were excavated by bears. While marmots may dig several refuge burrows in alpine meadows, and bears may substantially modify them while hunting marmots, our observations indicate that some excavated burrows retain value for foraging marmots. However, the extent of their utility is unknown. We postulate several reasons why hoary marmots may use excavated burrows and suggest avenues for further research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".