MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012028404 · doi:10.1139/z03-195

Influence of trawling on the behaviour and spatial distribution of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (<i>Tursiops aduncus</i>) in Moreton Bay, Australia

2003· article· en· W2012028404 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B. Louise Chilvers, Peter Corkeron, Marji Puotinen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsTrawlingIndo-PacificBayForagingFisheryBottlenose dolphinBiologyWildlifeSpatial distributionEcologySympatric speciationGeographyFishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sympatric communities of inshore Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) have previously been identified within Moreton Bay, southeast Queensland, Australia. The two communities overlap in distribution, yet are almost completely socially segregated and forage in distinctly different ways. The correlation between this social segregation, the different foraging strategies, and a human activity (trawling) has previously been demonstrated. This paper investigates the possible effects of trawling on the behaviour and spatial distribution of these two communities. A geographical information system is used to determine the spatial use of each community. The behavioural budgets of both communities showed significantly higher levels of foraging behaviours than reported for most other bottlenose dolphin communities. The spatial use of both communities changed seasonally. These results provide further detail on how human activities may indirectly influence the behaviour and spatial use of free-ranging marine wildlife.

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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations46
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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