A body composition model with multiple storage compartments for polar bears (<i>Ursus maritimus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate warming is rapidly altering Arctic ecosystems. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) need sea ice as a platform from which to hunt seals, but increased sea-ice loss is lengthening periods when bears are without access to primary hunting habitat. During periods of food scarcity, survival depends on the energy that a bear has stored in body reserves, termed storage energy, making this a key metric in predictive models assessing climate change impacts on polar bears. Here, we developed a body composition model for polar bears that estimates storage energy while accounting for changes in storage tissue composition. We used data of dissected polar bears (n = 31) to link routinely collected field measures of total body mass and straight-line body length to the body composition of individual bears, described in terms of structural mass and two storage compartments, adipose and muscle. We then estimated the masses of metabolizable proteins and lipids within these storage compartments, giving total storage energy. We tested this multi-storage model by using it to predict changes in the lipid stores from an independent dataset of wild polar bears (n = 36) that were recaptured 8–200 days later. Using length and mass measurements, our model successfully predicted direct measurements of lipid changes via isotopic dilutions (root mean squared error of 14.5 kg). Separating storage into two compartments, and allowing the molecular composition of storage to vary, provides new avenues for quantifying energy stores of individuals across their life cycle. The multi-storage body composition model thus provides a basis for further exploring energetic costs of physiological processes that contribute to individual survival and reproductive success. Given bioenergetic models are increasingly used as a tool to predict individual fitness and population dynamics, our approach for estimating individual energy stores could be applicable to a wide range of species.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".