MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402733944 · doi:10.2192/ursus-d-23-00019r1

Sea ice dynamics influence movement patterns of adult female polar bears in southern Hudson Bay

2024· article· en· W4402733944 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin R. Middel, Martyn E. Obbard

Bibliographic record

VenueUrsus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayUrsus maritimusSea iceMovement (music)PolarOceanographyDynamics (music)GeographyGeologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To access seals (Pinnipedia), polar bears (Ursus maritimus) move large distances over the sea ice in winter. Already documented declines in ice duration for Hudson Bay, Canada, are predicted to continue, likely affecting polar bear movement patterns. Using data from global positioning system (GPS) collars, 2007–2011, we describe movement patterns of adult female polar bears of the Southern Hudson Bay (SH) subpopulation. We tested effects of season and reproductive class on movement rates, distance travelled, displacement distance and direction, and home range size. Except for denning females, reproductive class had no effect on movement rates, which were greatest during freeze-up and least during summer. Across all reproductive classes and seasons, mean hourly movement rate was 0.63 km/hour. Mean annual distance moved by nondenning females was 4,771 km. During freeze-up, bears moved north-easterly from the Ontario coast toward the Belcher Islands and Québec following the forming ice edge. During breakup, bears moved southerly toward the Ontario coast and away from the residual ice that occurs north of the Ontario coast. In autumn, denning females moved southerly and inland to den. Mean annual minimum convex polygon (MCP) home-range size was 153,866 km2, with no effect of reproductive class nor change over time. Home range estimates from kernel density estimators and Brownian bridge movement models (BBMM) varied by reproductive class and were smaller than MCP ones. The BBMM estimates likely yield more realistic patterns of space use by polar bears. Using data from satellite collars, 1997–2003, we compared travel distance and home range size between periods (1997–2003; 2007–2011). We found weak evidence of a difference in distance moved between periods, perhaps due to a period of ice stability in the 2000s. Our results identified patterns of use of extensive areas of Hudson Bay by SH bears in winter, and results provide benchmarks for future studies of movement patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueUrsus→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→