Dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) subgroup distribution: are shallow waters a refuge for nursery groups?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammalian young are especially vulnerable to harm because of their small size, poorly developed survival skills, and strong dependence on maternal care. Tactics for rearing young, including avoiding harm, vary largely by environment type. Off Kaikoura, New Zealand, mother–calf pairs of dusky dolphins ( Lagenorhynchus obscurus (Gray, 1828)) are often found in small groups with other mother–calf pairs, with calves of roughly the same age. These groups, termed “nursery groups”, may distance vulnerable calves from hazards associated with males seeking mating opportunities, predation by sharks and killer whales ( Orcinus orca (L., 1758)), and boat traffic. We conducted systematic boat-based surveys to determine the relative distribution of dusky dolphin group types, predators, and boats in the area. Nursery groups were encountered in shallow waters (≤20 m) significantly more often than in deeper waters (p < 0.001). Boats were found more in shallow water, while predators were almost exclusively encountered in deeper water. Other dusky dolphin group types did not show a preference for deep or shallow waters. Potential harassment from males and the presence of boats were both significant predictors of the depth category in which a group was found (p < 0.03). We recommend that managers focus efforts on protecting this vulnerable subgroup of the dusky dolphin population by protecting their preferred nearshore shallow habitat and by reducing recreational boating and fishing in these areas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".