MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1981946095 · doi:10.1139/z09-038

Growth and reproduction of female eastern and whitebelly spinner dolphins incidentally killed in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna purse-seine fishery

2009· article· en· W1981946095 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jason P. Larese, Susan J. Chivers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyYellowfin tunaFisheryThunnusTunaPopulationSex ratioReproductionIce calvingEcologyDemographyPregnancyLactationFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Life-history parameters are estimated for two forms of the spinner dolphin ( Stenella longirostris (Gray, 1828)): the eastern subspecies ( Stenella longirostris orientalis Perrin, 1990) and the whitebelly hybrid. The data analyzed (n = 3138 eastern and 3099 whitebelly spinner dolphins) were collected between 1968 and 1994 from female dolphins incidentally killed in the yellowfin tuna ( Thunnus albacares (Bonnaterre, 1788)) purse-seine fishery that operates in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Eastern spinner dolphins averaged 79.7 cm at birth, 121.5 cm at 1 year, and 171.5 cm at asymptotic length, and had a mean annual pregnancy rate of 0.351 and a calving interval of 2.84 years. Whitebelly spinner dolphins averaged 80.2 cm at birth, 122.5 cm at 1 year, and 177.1 cm at asymptotic length, and had a mean annual pregnancy rate of 0.329 and calving interval of 3.04 years. The mean age at attainment of sexual maturity was estimated to be 8.7 and 8.4 years for eastern and whitebelly spinner dolphins, respectively, which are 3.2 and 1.7 years older than those previously published. This difference indicates that the mean reproductive output during a female’s life is lower than previously expected and likely translates into lower population growth rates.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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