MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1892279106 · doi:10.21083/surg.v4i2.1253

Decreased ability to acquire food of a captive deaf dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): Slower reaction times and lower success rates

2011· article· en· W1892279106 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Katherine A. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueSURG Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsBottlenose dolphinHuman echolocationFish <Actinopterygii>AudiologyHearing lossFisheryNoise (video)BiologyComputer scienceMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oceanic anthropogenic noise, such as naval sonar, can cause temporary hearing loss in cetaceans, but it is not known to what extent hearing loss affects cetacean behaviours such as feeding. This study used a captive deaf Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) to test the hypothesis that hearing loss would decrease a dolphin’s ability to acquire food by preventing echolocation (using echoes to locate fish). Reaction time (time to acquire dropped fish) and success rate (percentage of successfully acquired fish) were measured for the deaf dolphin and for two dolphins with no known hearing disabilities at Dolphins Plus in Florida in May 2009. The deaf dolphin had a significantly slower mean reaction time and a significantly lower mean success rate than those of the two other dolphins. A hydrophone suggested that the deaf dolphin could not echolocate, and thus relied mainly on vision. The results illustrate that hearing loss can negatively affect a dolphin’s ability to acquire food. Therefore, sources and effects of dolphin hearing loss require further investigation in order to provide targets for anthropogenic noise levels.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSURG JournalSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207