MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1715271918 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2012-0137

Diet history of ice seals using stable isotope ratios in claw growth bands

2013· article· en· W1715271918 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sara S. Carroll, L. Horstmann-Dehn, Brenda L. Norcross

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsBiologyForagingClawTrophic levelPredationIsotope analysisArcticSea iceEcologyFisheryOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change and sea-ice reduction may lead to modifications of food-web structure in the Arctic, and this may impact foraging of ice-associated predators. We examined the dietary history recorded in cornified claw sheaths of ringed seals (Pusa hispida (Schreber, 1775)) and bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus (Erxleben, 1777)) to describe potential seasonal and interannual changes in their foraging. Seasonal layers of cornified cells deposited in claws can document trophic history up to about 10 years; thereafter, the claws start to wear at the distal end. A total of 38 claws were collected during Alaska Native subsistence harvests in 2008–2010 and seasonal growth bands were examined for stable nitrogen and carbon isotope ratios to assess long-term diet patterns. During 2007 (record ice minimum), proportionally more ringed seals fed at a lower trophic level. Bearded seals may have been foraging more pelagically from 2008 to 2010. Interannual variations and high variability between the two ice seal species and among individual diets illustrate the opportunistic nature and flexibility of ice seals to changes in prey.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→