Autumn diet of harbour seals (<i>Phoca vitulina</i>) at Prins Karls Forland, Svalbard, assessed via scat and fatty-acid analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used hard-part analyses from scats (n = 117) and stomachs (n = 3) to investigate the diet of high Arctic harbour seals (Phoca vitulina L., 1758) living on Prins Karls Forland, Svalbard, in early autumn. Additionally, it compared the results of fatty-acid analyses of the seals' blubber versus that of potential prey with the findings of the more traditional diet assessment method. Svalbard harbour seals appear to be opportunistic, polyphagous feeders similar to the situation in other parts of their range. Members of the cod-family, and secondarily the sculpin-family, dominated the diet of harbour seals on Svalbard. Small fish comprised most of the diet of the harbour seals; invertebrates appeared to be insignificant. Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L., 1758) was the most important species in the diet in terms of biomass, whereas polar cod (Boreogadus saida (Lepechin, 1774)) was the most frequently consumed prey. Our comparison between hard-part diet analyses and fatty acids is far from definitive, but it indicates a general influence of the diet on the fatty-acid composition of the inner blubber layer. However, it also suggests systematic selective processes in the incorporation of fatty acids into the blubber. Observed differences between the fatty-acid composition of the different blubber layers and possible differences between sex and age classes warrant further investigation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".