MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2049067949 · doi:10.3957/056.041.0207

Interactions between Leatherback Turtles and Killer Whales in Namibian Waters, Including Possible Predation

2011· article· en· W2049067949 on OpenAlexaff
Simon H. Elwen, Ruth H. Leeney

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Journal of Wildlife Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationBayFisheryWhaleGeographyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Killer whales and leatherback turtles are infrequently sighted in the coastal waters of southern Africa. Year round observations in Walvis Bay, Namibia of killer whales (2003–2010) by multiple marine tour operators and opportunistic seasonal observations of leatherback turtles made during a cetacean research project in the area (2008–2010) have been collated. Visits to coastal waters by killer whales (n = 16) are sporadic and unpredictable but are slightly higher (n = 11) between late winter (August) and late summer (March). Leatherback turtles were only seen in the warmer periods of summer months (February–March) when the surface waters exceeded 15°C. Two interactions (one harassment and one probably predation) between killer whales and leatherback turtles have been recorded in Walvis Bay. This is the first report of killer whales eating leatherback turtles in the South Atlantic. These observations are noteworthy due to the low frequency of encounters of both species in the area, suggesting predation of turtles may be relatively common. Knowledge of the diet of killer whales is valuable due to the importance of dietary specialization in definition of ecotypes of the species.

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)0.000
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth African Journal of Wildlife Research→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→