Killer whale ( <i>Orcinus orca</i> ) predation in a multi‐prey system
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Predation can regulate prey numbers but predator behaviour in multiple‐prey systems can complicate understanding of control mechanisms. We investigate killer whale ( Orcinus orca ) predation in an ocean system where multiple marine mammal prey coexist. Using stochastic models with Monte‐Carlo simulations, we test the most likely outcome of predator selection and compare scenarios where killer whales: (1) focus predation on larger prey which presumably offer more energy per effort, (2) generalize by feeding on prey as encountered during searches, or (3) follow a mixed foraging strategy based on a combination of encounter rate and prey size selection. We test alternative relationships within the Hudson Bay geographic region, where evidence suggests killer whales seasonally concentrate feeding activities on the large‐bodied bowhead whale ( Balaena mysticetus ). However, model results indicate that killer whales do not show strong prey specialization and instead alternatively feed on narwhal ( Monodon monoceros ) and beluga ( Delphinapterus leucas ) whales early and late in the ice‐free season. Evidence does support the conjecture that during the peak of the open water season, killer whale predation can differ regionally and feeding techniques can focus on bowhead whale prey. The mixed foraging strategy used by killer whales includes seasonal predator specialization and has management and conservation significance since killer whale predation may not be constrained by a regulatory functional response.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 it