MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399814308 · doi:10.1038/s43247-024-01430-7

Ice-free period too long for Southern and Western Hudson Bay polar bear populations if global warming exceeds 1.6 to 2.6 °C

2024· article· en· W4399814308 on OpenAlexafffund
Julienne Strœve, Alex Crawford, Steve Ferguson, Ian Stirling, Louise C. Archer, Geoffrey S. York, David G. Babb, Robbie Mallett

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Earth & Environment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsBayClimatologyPeriod (music)OceanographyGlobal warmingPolarGeographyClimate changePhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hudson Bay has warmed over 1 °C in the last 30 years. Coincident with this warming, seasonal patterns have shifted, with the spring sea ice melting earlier and the fall freeze-up occurring later, leading to a month longer of ice-free conditions. This extended ice-free period presents a significant challenge for polar bears, as it restricts their hunting opportunities for seals and their ability to accumulate the necessary body weight for successful reproduction. Drawing on the latest insights from CMIP6, our updated projections of the ice-free period indicate a more spatially detailed and alarming outlook for polar bear survival. Limiting global warming to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels may prevent the ice-free period from exceeding 183 days in both western and southern Hudson Bay, providing some optimism for adult polar bear survival. However, with longer ice-free periods already substantially impacting recruitment, extirpation for polar bears in this region may already be inevitable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications Earth & EnvironmentSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207