MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098507416

PANEL 3: POLAR BEAR STUDIES Further Notes on Polar Bear Denning Habits

2015· article· en· W7098507416 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaySnowProductivityPopulationHabitat
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polar bears construct maternity dens in the snow throughout their range. The Owl River maternity denning a r e a on the Manitoba coast of Hudson Bay, Canada, had a measured productivity of 100-150 cubs in 1970 and 1971. Maternity denning is now confirmed for the Twin Islands in James Bay, but estimates of productivity for James Bay and the Ontario coast of Hudson Bay should still be made. Female polar bea rs build a variety of dens in the vicinity of their winter dens and along their route a s they move to the sea ice. This makes the censusing of maternity dens and estimating of productivity difficult. The winter dens in Hudson and James bays differ from high arc t ic dens in that earth chambers a r e used, with snow dens added a s winter progresses. Summer denning occurs along the Manitoba and Ontario coasts of Hudson Bay, and on the islands in James Bay. Surface pits, shallow dens and deep burrows a r e the three basic types of ear th dens built. All three types appear to be con-structed for temperature regulation by the bears, but each type is sometimes used la ter for shelter, protection from insects, protection from other bea rs or for winter dens. These behavioural adaptations appear significant in delineating a discrete polar bear population for James Bay and southern Hudson Bay.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0710.008

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.135 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207