Population spatial structuring on the feeding grounds in North Atlantic humpback whales (<i>Megaptera novaeangliae</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Population spatial structuring among North Atlantic humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae on the summer feeding grounds was investigated using movement patterns of identified individuals. We analysed the results from an intensive 2‐year ocean‐basin‐scale investigation resulting in 1658 individuals identified by natural markings and 751 individuals by genetic markers supplemented with data from a long‐term collaborative study with 3063 individuals identified by natural markings. Re‐sighting distances ranged from <1 km to >2200 km. The frequencies ( F ) of re‐sighting distances ( D ) observed in consecutive years were best modelled by an inverse allometric function ( F =6631 D −1.24 , r 2 =0.984), reflecting high levels of site fidelity (median re‐sighting distance <40 km) with occasional long‐distance movement (5% of re‐sightings >550 km). The distribution of re‐sighting distances differed east and west of 45°W, with more long‐distance movement in the east. This difference is consistent with regional patterns of prey distribution and predictability. Four feeding aggregations were identified: the Gulf of Maine, eastern Canada, West Greenland and the eastern North Atlantic. There was an exchange rate of 0.98% between the western feeding aggregations. The prevalence of long‐distance movement in the east made delineation of possible additional feeding aggregations less clear. Limited exchange between sites separated by as little as tens of kilometres produced lower‐level structuring within all feeding aggregations. Regional and temporal differences in movement patterns reflected similar foraging responses to varying patterns of prey availability and predictability. A negative relationship was shown between relative abundance of herring and sand lance in the Gulf of Maine and humpback whale movement from the Gulf of Maine to eastern Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".