MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Activity budget and diving behavior of gray whales (<i>Eschrichtius robustus)</i> in feeding grounds off coastal British Columbia

2008· article· en· W2006404343 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lei Lani Stelle, William Megill, M R Kinzel

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Mammal Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingBenthic zonePredationRookeryFisheryOceanographyShoreGeographyBiologyEnvironmental scienceEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Behavior and diving patterns of summer resident gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) foraging on mysids were studied in coastal bays along the north shore of Queen Charlotte Strait, British Columbia. In this region, gray whales were found to feed primarily on planktonic prey rather than on the benthos as in their primary feeding areas further north. During the summers of 1999 and 2000, whales spent most of their time actively feeding or searching for prey (77%), whereas only 15% of their time was spent traveling and 8% socializing. The majority of the dives were short; the mean dive duration was 2.24 min with approximately three respirations per surfacing and 15 s between blows. Whales dove frequently (26.7 h−1), spending only 17% of their time at the surface with an overall blow rate of 1.14 respirations per minute. Activity states were characterized by significantly different diving and respiratory parameters; feeding whales dove more frequently, with shorter intervals between respirations, thus spending less time at the surface compared to when traveling or searching. This diving pattern differs from benthic‐feeding whales and likely optimizes capture of the mobile mysid swarms in shallow waters.

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 score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.214
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Mammal ScienceSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207