MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030805374 · doi:10.1139/z99-190

Ontogeny of swimming and diving in northern fur seal (<i>Callorhinus ursinus</i>) pups

2000· article· en· W2030805374 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jason D. Baker, Mary J. Donohue

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Marine Fisheries ServiceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFur sealBiologyElephant sealOntogenyRookeryWeaningAnimal scienceZoologyDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time spent in the water and diving behavior of northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) pups were monitored between birth and weaning at St. Paul Island, Alaska. The median age when pups began swimming was 26 days, but prior to 40 days of age they spent virtually all their time on shore and only rarely took brief (15-20 min) swims. Pups began spending substantial time in the water at approximately 40-50 days of age, coinciding both with the early growth of insulating underfur and a seasonal peak in sea surface temperature. This suggests that pups had earlier been constrained to remain on shore by their undeveloped thermoregulatory capabilities. Time in the water increased up to approximately 100 days of age, when molted pups spent about 35% of their time in the water and swim bouts were several hours in duration. Moreover, the presence of a pup's mother on shore, photoperiod, and precipitation also influenced the amount of time pups spent in the water. Pups (mean age = 100 days) dove to very shallow depths (mean = 3 m) for short durations (mean = 11 s). Because pups did not gain mass unless suckled by their mothers, it is unlikely that they fed extensively while diving prior to migration. The pattern of development of swimming and diving in northern fur seals is intermediate between typical phocid and otariid patterns, as is the maternal strategy.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations54
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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