MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4406337809 · doi:10.3389/fcosc.2024.1530440

Corrigendum: Evidence of fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus velifera) recovery in the Canadian Pacific

2025· erratum· en· W4406337809 sur OpenAlex
Lynn Rannankari, Rianna E. Burnham, David A. Duffus

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueFrontiers in Conservation Science · 2025
Typeerratum
Langueen
DomaineEarth and Planetary Sciences
ThématiqueArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Victoria
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMistakeParagraphStatement (logic)BalaenopteraWhalePopulationComputer scienceLibrary scienceWorld Wide WebHistoryLinguisticsPolitical scienceFisheryLawPhilosophyMedicineBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

• please read through all the templates before choosing • pick the most relevant text template(s) from the following page and delete all others.• edit the text as necessary, ensuring that the original incorrect text is included for the record, please see the below. • please do not use any extra formatting when editing the templates, and only modify the red text unless absolutely necessary • submit to Frontiers following the instructions on this page.When the original text contained incorrect information, to preserve the scientific record, please include that text when editing the below templates. For example:There was a mistake in the Funding statement, an incorrect number was used. The correct number is "2015C03Bd051.". The publisher apologizes for this mistake.The original version of this article has been updated.In the published article, there was a mistake in the Funding statement. The funding statement for the Key Development Project of the Department of Science and Technology was displayed as "2015CBd051". The correct statement is "Key Development Project of Department of Science and Technology (2015C03Bd051).'' Template continues on the next page ê Corrigendum on: Rannankari, L., Burnham, R., and Duffus, D. (2024). Evidence of fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus velifera) recovery in the Canadian Pacific. Front. Conserv. Sci. 5:1392039. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2024.1392039 In the published article, there was an error. In the published article, there was a mistake in the population abundance number for fin whales that was reported by Wright et al. 2021, as well as two other text mistakes within the same paragraph.A correction has been made to 4 Population abundance and structure, Paragraph Number 2. This sentence previously stated: "To date, an estimate of population abundance for fin whales in Canadian waters, especially for offshore regions is lacking where fin whales are presumed to be most numerous (COSEWIC, 2019). Dedicated, systematic surveys have estimated the population in BC to be approximately 400-500 individuals (2004-2005 survey, 496 individuals (95% CI: 202-1218) Williams and Thomas, 2007;2004-2008 survey, 446 individuals (95% CI: 263-759) Best et al., 2015). Nichol et al. ( 2018) confirmed this estimate from surveys conducted between 2009 and 2014 (405 individuals (95% CI: 363-469)), complemented using photo-identification to better estimate the number of individuals. These surveys highlighted whale 'hotspots' in Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte and Caamano Sounds (Harvey et al., 2017; Figure 1). Sightings interpolated using density surface modeling from the 2018 PRISM survey suggested a total count of 23,692 (95% CI: 19,121-29,356) fin whales for British Columbia from 29 sightings (Wright et al., 2021), far exceeding earlier estimates (see COSEWIC, 2019). Much more of these efforts were given to offshore survey. For the north-coast region, in an area comparable to the earlier work of Best et al. (2015) but ten years later, the model predicted 2,893 fin whales (95% CI: 2,171-3,855, Wright et al., 2021). Each of these dedicated surveys highlighted similar areas of increased whale density in BC."PAGE \* Arabic \* MERGEFORMAT 3The corrected sentence appears below: "To date, an estimate of population abundance for fin whales in Canadian waters, especially for offshore regions is lacking where fin whales are presumed to be most numerous (COSEWIC, 2019). Dedicated, systematic surveys have estimated the population in BC to be approximately 400-500 individuals (2004-2005 survey, 496 individuals (95% CI: 202-1218) Williams and Thomas, 2007;2004-2008survey, 446 individuals (95% CI: 263-759) Best et al., 2015). Nichol et al. (2018) confirmed this estimate from surveys conducted between 2009 and 2014 (405 individuals (95% CI: 363-469)), complemented using photo-identification to better estimate the number of individuals. These surveys highlighted whale 'hotspots' in Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte and Caamano Sounds (Harvey et al., 2017; Figure 1). Sightings interpolated using density surface modelling from the 2018 PRISMM survey suggested a total abundance of 2,893 (95% CI: 2171 -3855) fin whales in BC estimated from 235 sightings across two survey strata (Wright et al., 2021). This survey found over six times as many fin whale sightings in the offshore than the north coast stratum and, overall, exceeded earlier abundance estimates (see The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), 2019)"The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.End of template, if you would like to request a correction for a reason not seen here, please contact the journal's Editorial Office

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,791
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,242
Écart entre enseignants0,213 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle