MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983779036 · doi:10.1139/z03-117

The migratory behaviour of narwhals (<i>Monodon monoceros</i>)

2003· article· en· W1983779036 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mads Peter Heide‐Jørgensen, Runé Dietz, Kristin L. Laidre, Pierre Richard, Jack Orr, Hans Christian Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of EnvironmentPinngortitaleriffik
KeywordsBayArcticOceanographyArctic ice packGeographyFisherySea iceGeologyPhysical geographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sixteen female narwhals (Monodon monoceros) were tracked by satellite in 2000 and 2001 from their summering ground near Somerset Island in the Canadian High Arctic to their wintering ground in central Baffin Bay. The wintering ground location was spatially discrete from another narwhal wintering ground in southern Baffin Bay. Area extent of the summering ground was approximately 9464 km2and area extent of the wintering ground was 25 846 km2. Two of the narwhals were tracked for more than 12 consecutive months. These whales used three focal areas between their spring and autumn migration: a coastal area in the open-water season in August in the Canadian High Arctic, a wintering area from November through April in the consolidated pack ice of Baffin Bay, and an early summer area in front of the receding fast ice edge in Lancaster Sound. The whales showed remarkable site fidelity to summering grounds and had specific migratory routes that followed sea ice formation and recession.

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 score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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

Citations97
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207