Survival of Steller sea lions in Alaska: a comparison of increasing and decreasing populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steller sea lion ( Eumetopias jubatus (Schreber, 1776)) populations have had differing dynamics in different regions of Alaska over the past 30 years. The western population (west of 144°W, near Cape Suckling) declined by approximately 85% between the 1970s and 2000, while the eastern population has increased at a rate of over 3%/year. Past research has indicated that the decline in the western population likely resulted from decreased juvenile survival and smaller declines in adult female survival and reproduction. Based on repeated observations (1987–2003) of sea lions branded as pups at Marmot Island (58.216°N, 151.840°W; western population; branded in 1987–1988) and at the Forrester Island rookery complex (54.859°N, 133.539°W; eastern population; branded in 1994–1995), we used mark–resight analyses to estimate age-specific survival probabilities. Juvenile sea lion survival probability at Marmot Island from 1988 to 1991 was lower than survival estimates at that location in the 1970s (assumed stable population) and lower than juvenile survival at Forrester Island from 1995 to 1998 (increasing population). Adult female survival at Marmot Island from 1992 to 2003 was only slightly reduced compared with that in the 1970s but was substantially lower than that at Forrester Island (1999–2003). In addition, and contrary to the typical pattern (e.g., Forrester Island), adult female survival probabilities at Marmot Island were indistinguishable from adult male survival probabilities. This suggests that regardless of which factors altered the dynamics of the western Steller sea lion population, they differentially affected females.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".