MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406947563 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.ads7321

Anti-icing properties of polar bear fur

2025· article· en· W4406947563 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julian Carolan, Martin Jakubec, Neubi Francisco Xavier, Adam Pestana Motala, Ersilia Bifulco, Jon Aars, Magnus Andersen, Anne Lisbeth Schmidt, Marc Brunet Cabré, Vikramjeet Singh, Paula E. Colavita, Espen W. Selfors, Marco Sacchi, Shane S. O’Reilly, Øyvind Halskau, Manish K. Tiwari, Richard G. Hobbs, Bodil Holst

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrsus maritimusIcingPolarArcticSqualeneBlubberAdsorptionSea iceEnvironmental chemistryChemical physicsEnvironmental scienceChemistryEcologyOceanographyGeologyBiologyOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

) is the only Arctic land mammal that dives into water to hunt. Despite thermal insulation provided by blubber and fur layers and low Arctic temperatures, their fur is typically observed to be free of ice. This study investigates the anti-icing properties of polar bear fur. Here, we show that polar bear fur exhibits low ice adhesion strengths comparable to fluorocarbon-coated fibers, with the low ice adhesion a consequence of the fur sebum (hair grease). Lipid analyses reveal the presence of cholesterol, diacylglycerols, anteisomethyl-branched fatty acids, and the unexpected absence of squalene. Quantum chemical calculations predict low ice adsorption energies for identified lipids and high adsorption for squalene, suggesting that sebum composition is responsible for the observed anti-icing properties. Our work enhances understanding of polar bears and their interactions with their environment and builds on Inuit knowledge of natural anti-icing materials.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207