MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Geographic, seasonal, and diurnal surface behavior of harbor porpoises

2012· article· en· W2058067537 on OpenAlexaff
Jonas Teilmann, Casper T. Christiansen, Sanne Kjellerup, Runé Dietz, Gösta Nachman

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Mammal Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyCetaceaSeasonalityFisheryEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract During ship surveys harbor porpoises are only visible when breaking the sea surface to breathe, while during aerial surveys they may be seen down to 2 m below the surface. The fractions of time spent at these two depths can be used for correcting visual surveys to actual population estimates, which are essential information on the status and management of the species. Thirty‐five free‐ranging harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) were tracked in the region between the Baltic and the North Sea for 25–349 d using Argos satellite transmitters. No differences were found in surface behavior between geographical areas or the size of the animals. Slight differences were found between the two sexes and time of day. Surface time peaked in April, where 6% was spent with the transmitter above surface and 61.5% between 0 and 2 m depth, while the minimum values occurred in February (3.4% and 42.5%, respectively). The analyses reveal that individual variation among porpoises is the most important factor in explaining variation in surface rates. However, the large number of animals documented in the present study covering a wide range of age and sex groups justifies the use of the seasonal average surface times for correcting abundance surveys.

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 score0.005

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Mammal ScienceSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207