Stomach temperature telemetry reveals temporal patterns of foraging success in a free‐ranging marine mammal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. We studied feeding frequency in free-ranging grey seals using stomach temperature telemetry to test if previously reported sex differences in the diving, movement and diet were reflected in the temporal pattern of foraging success. 2. Data were retrieved from 21 of 32 grey seals from 1999 to 2001, totalling 343 days and 555 feeding events, with individual record length varying from 2 to 40 days (mean: 16.33 +/- 2.67 days/seal). 3. Seals fed on 57.8 +/- 6.46% of days sampled and had an average of 1.7 +/- 0.26 meals per day, but individual variability was apparent in the temporal distribution of feeding as evidenced by high coefficients of variation (coefficient of variation = 69.0%). 4. Bout analysis of non-feeding intervals of six grey seals suggests that feeding intervals of individuals were varied and probably reflect differences in prey availability. Grey seals tended to have many single feeding events with long periods separating each event, as would be expected for a large carnivore with a batch-reactor digestive system. 5. We found significant sex differences in the temporal distribution of feeding. The number of feeding events per day was greater in males (2.2 +/- 0.4 vs. 1.0 +/- 0.2), as was time associated with feeding per day (56.6 +/- 5.8 min vs. 43.9 +/- 9.4 min). 6. The number of feeding events varied with time of day with the least number occurring during dawn. Feeding event size differed significantly by time of day, with greater meal sizes during the dawn and the smallest meals during the night. 7. The length of time between meals increased with the size of the previous meal, and was significantly less in males (541.4 +/- 63.5 min) than in females (1092.6 +/- 169.9 min). 8. These results provide new insight into the basis of sex differences in diving and diet in this large size-dimorphic marine predator.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".