VARIABILITY IN THE BLUBBER FATTY ACID COMPOSITION OF RINGED SEALS (<i>PHOCA HISPIDA</i>) ACROSS THE CANADIAN ARCTIC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We determined the blubber fatty acid (FA) composition of 281 ringed seals (Phoca hispida) across the Canadian Arctic to make inferences about spatial, temporal, and demographic patterns of foraging. Seals were sampled in nine locations between 1992 and 2004. Regional differences in FA signatures were related to the distance between groups, with the greatest similarity occurring among seals sampled in three locations within the Beaufort Sea‐Amundsen Gulf. Seals in the western and southeastern portions of Hudson Bay also had similar FA signatures. Discriminant analysis on seventeen FAs classified ringed seals to their correct geographic region with 95% accuracy. Although location accounted for most of the variability in FA signatures, adult and juvenile ringed seals in Frobisher Bay‐Labrador Sea and Jones Sound showed significant FA differences, as did male and female ringed seals in Jones Sound and Qaanaaq. Demographic differences were not detected among ringed seals in the Beaufort Sea‐Amundsen Gulf or in western Hudson Bay. Seals off the coast of Labrador showed significant seasonal variability in FA signatures. Overall, seasonal, regional, and demographic patterns in FA signatures were consistent with differences in ringed seal diets, as inferred from stomach content and stable isotope analyses.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".