Pup development and timing of pupping in harbour seals (<i>Phoca vitulina</i>) in the St. Lawrence River estuary, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surveys to estimate the daily growth rate of harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) pups from birth to weaning and to determine the distribution of births were carried out from early May to late August 1998, 1999, and 2000 at two haulout areas in the St. Lawrence River estuary, Canada. Pups gained mass at a rate of 0.544 kg/day (standard error (SE) = 0.141, range 0.1180.875 kg/day, N = 110). Births began between 12 and 17 May. The median dates of birth were 28 May (95% confidence interval (CI), 2730 May) in 1998, 25 May (95% CI, 2428 May) in 1999, and 26 May (95% CI, 2427 May) in 2000. Births followed a normal distribution in 2000, but late pupping led to an extended tail in both 1998 and 1999. Pupping occurred at the same time in the St. Lawrence River estuary as at Sable Island, a colony located 600 km to the south, but occurred earlier than predicted by the relationship of Temte et al. (1991). The estimated median dates of weaning were 1 July (95% CI, 20 June to 12 July) in 1998, 30 June (95% CI, 19 June to 11 July) in 1999, and 26 June (95% CI, 20 June to 2 July) in 2000. Pooling years resulted in an average lactation duration of 34 days (SE = 1.8).
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".