Data from: Grizzly bear response to fine spatial and temporal scale spring snow cover in Western Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractSnow dynamics influence seasonal behaviors of wildlife, such as denning patterns and habitat selection related to the availability of food resources. Under a changing climate, characteristics of the temporal and spatial patterns of snow are predicted to change, and as a result, there is a need to better understand how species interact with snow dynamics. This study examines grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) spring habitat selection and use across western Alberta, Canada. Made possible by newly available fine-scale snow cover data, this research tests a hypothesis that grizzly bears select for locations with less snow cover and areas where snow melts sooner during spring (den emergence to May 31st). Using Integrated Step Selection Analysis, a series of models were built to examine whether snow cover information such as fractional snow covered area and date of snow melt improved models constructed based on previous knowledge of grizzly bear selection during the spring. Comparing four different models fit to 62 individual bear-years, we found that the inclusion of fractional snow covered area improved model fit 60% of the time based on Akaike Information Criterion tallies. Probability of use was then used to evaluate grizzly bear habitat use in response to snow and environmental attributes, including fractional snow covered area, date since snow melt, elevation, and distance to road. Results indicate grizzly bears select for lower elevation, snow-free locations during spring, which has important implications for management of threatened grizzly bear populations in consideration of changing climatic conditions. This study is an example of how fine spatial and temporal scale remote sensing data can be used to improve our understanding of wildlife habitat selection and use in relation to key environmental attributes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".