Sequential Habitat Use by Two Resident Killer Whale (<I>Orcinus orca</I>) Clans in Resurrection Bay, Alaska, as Determined by Remote Acoustic Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Killer whales (Orcinus orca) are sighted regularly in coastal Alaska during the summer, but little is known about their movements through the area during the winter when weather and light limit the use of boat-based surveys. Acoustic monitoring provides a practical alternative because each extended resident killer whale family group or pod has a unique dialect that can be discerned by differences in their repertoires of stereotyped calls. The repertoires of resident killer whale pods in the northern Gulf of Alaska were updated from earlier studies, and the results used to determine the identity of pods that were recorded on remote hydrophones in Resurrection Bay, Alaska, in the fall, winter, and spring of 1999 to 2004. In total, seven pods of resident killer whales were identified acoustically, comprising four related pods from AB clan and three from AD clan. The frequencies of occurrence of the clans differed between the November to March recording period when AB clan occupied the area, and the April-May period when AD clan was predominant. The sequential use of this habitat during periods of relative prey scarcity has the effect of limiting intergroup resource competition and is consistent with earlier findings that demonstrated divergent resource specialization by sympatric killer whale populations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".