AQUATIC MATING STRATEGIES OF THE MALE PACIFIC HARBOR SEAL (<i>PHOCA VITULINA RICHARDII</i>): ARE MALES DEFENDING THE HOTSPOT?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract Compared to the harem and resource defense systems of terrestrial mating pinnipeds, males of aquatic mating species appear unable to monopolize females or resources. We investigated movements, acoustics, and aquatic territorial behavior of male harbor seals, Phoca vitulina richardii , in Elkhorn Slough, California, using VHF telemetry, hydrophones, and acoustic playback experiments. During the mating season 22 males increased time spent in the water and away from haul‐out locations, exhibiting activity patterns similar to Atlantic subspecies. Two acoustic display patterns were observed. At one location multiple males aggregated to display with acoustic activity peaking one month before peak estrus. At two other locations, lone males displayed primarily during peak estrus. Acoustic display areas were non‐adjacent with a mean ± SE size of 4,228 ± 576 m 2 , similar to harbor seal display patterns in the Moray Firth, Scotland. Underwater playbacks of male vocalizations were used to define territorial boundaries by inducing responses from territory‐holding males. Four solitary males defended adjacent territories (mean area 39,571 ± 18,818 m 2 ) along a travel corridor, similar to observations of harbor seals at Miquelon, Newfoundland. Acoustic display stations appeared to be subcomponents of larger territories. Males exhibited site fidelity to territories for at least 2–4 yr. Females moved through territories freely. The establishment of male‐display territories along female‐traffic corridors resembles terrestrial systems described as hotspot leks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".