Growth of the harbour porpoise (<i>Phocoena phocoena</i>) in eastern Newfoundland, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the stock relationships among harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Northwest Atlantic are unknown, it has been postulated that there are 4 local populations: Bay of Fundy/Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, and west Greenland. Data on the Newfoundland population are extremely limited. To determine growth rates and examine if these animals can be differentiated from other sub-populations on the basis of growth characteristics, 94 porpoises caught incidentally in fishing gear along the southeast coast of Newfoundland during the summers of 1990 and 1991 were examined. Most porpoises (56%) were ≤ 4 years of age. Maximum age was 9 for females and 12 for males. Growth rates were similar for both sexes until one year of age, after which females grew longer and weighed more than males of similar ages. Using the Gompertz growth model, asymptotic values for body length were 156.3 cm for females and 142.9 cm for males. Asymptotic weights were 61.6 kg and 49.1 kg for females and males respectively. With the exception of West Greenland porpoise that were shorter and females from Norway that were lighter, Newfoundland porpoises could not be differentiated from animals collected in other areas based on growth data. However, differences in dental deposition patterns were noted suggesting that Newfoundland porpoise may belong to a separate population.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it