MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Social Affiliations within Sperm Whale (<i>Physeter macrocephalus</i>) Groups

2001· article· en· W2039017340 on OpenAlexafffund
Jenny Christal, Hal Whitehead

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCetacean Society InternationalNational Geographic Society
KeywordsSperm whaleBiologySpermCetaceaSocial groupZoologyForagingWhaleHomogeneousTerm (time)Social animalEcologyDemographySocial psychologyPsychologySociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined patterns of affiliation within groups of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), particularly concentrating on how short‐term spatio–temporal associations reflect long‐term relationships. Female and immature sperm whales live in stable, and partially matrilineal, social units. Two or more social units may move together for periods of several days, forming a cohesive group of about 20 animals. We observed that sperm whales in the eastern tropical Pacific quite consistently associated with members of their own social unit more than they did with other animals in their group with whom they did not share a long‐term relationship. There was little evidence for preferred, or avoided, affiliations within social units, except in two large and relatively unstable units. In two well‐studied groups, individuals did not show consistently favoured positions in the foraging rank relative to other members of their social unit. These results indicate the importance of long‐term relationships to female and immature sperm whales, but suggest that relationships are quite homogeneous within social units.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations66
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207