MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989527311 · doi:10.1139/z04-145

Regional differences in diving behavior of harbor seals in the Gulf of Alaska

2004· article· en· W1989527311 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kelly K. Hastings, K.J. Frost, Michael A. Simpkins, Grey W. Pendleton, Una G Swain, Robert J. Small

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlaska Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsPhocaOceanographyHarbor sealBiologySeasonalityFisheryEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult and subadult harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii (Gray, 1864); n = 108) from Southeast Alaska (SE), Kodiak Island (KO), and Prince William Sound (PWS) were instrumented with satellite data recorders to examine dive parameters for harbor seals in the Gulf of Alaska at regional and annual scales. Most dives (40%–80%) were <20 m in depth and <4 min in duration; however, dives from 50 to 150 m depth were not uncommon and dives to 508 m were recorded. PWS seals spent less time in the water during the prebreeding and breeding seasons than SE and KO seals. SE seals used a greater diversity of depths than KO and PWS seals. Only seals in PWS and SE (i) dived deeper and longer and spent more time diving in winter than during spring and summer and (ii) dived deepest during the day only in winter. Seals in all regions and seasons dived most frequently and spent the most time diving at night. Subadult seals spent more time diving, dived more often, displayed a stronger diurnal pattern with deepest dives during the day in the winter, and dived deeper than adults.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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