Reply to the discussion by Pilfold “Polar bear mass change confirms hyperphagia follows ringed seal whelping”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spring is a critical period when polar bears ( Ursus maritimus Phipps, 1774) are thought to have peak access to seals and acquire the majority of their annual energy requirements during a period of hyperphagia. Pagano et al. (Pagano A.M., Atkinson S.N., and Archer L.C. 2025. Arctic Science.11:1-14. doi:10.1139/as-2024-0051) examined the intra-seasonal changes in body mass of 31 polar bears on the spring sea ice and found polar bears exhibited a feast or famine lifestyle. A lack of a relationship between changes in body mass and recapture date suggested that many bears had not entered their primary period of hyperphagia. Pilfold extended our discussion to conclude that our data show polar bear hyperphagia begins after the period of ringed seal ( Pusa hispida Schreber, 1775) whelping, and discusses this in relation to previous work on the timing of polar bear seal kills. Here, we reassess whether our data provide information on the timing of polar bear hyperphagia. We find no relationships in our data to conclude when polar bear hyperphagia begins. Instead, our data highlight the conflicting pressures individuals face between the spring breeding season, when time spent foraging is often reduced to engage in mating behavior, and the spring hyperphagia period, when the bulk of annual energy requirements are met.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.051 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".