MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

RESPONSE OF NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALES (<i>EUBALAENA GLACIALIS</i>) TO PLAYBACK OF CALLS RECORDED FROM SURFACE ACTIVE GROUPS IN BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

2003· article· en· W2059551932 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan E. Parks

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Mammal Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Navy
KeywordsRight whaleBayCetaceaFisheryContext (archaeology)GeographyBiologyWhaleArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract The surface active group (SAG) is the most obvious social interaction of the North Atlantic right whale ( Eubalaena glacialis ). SAGs are typically composed of an adult female with two or more males engaged in social behavior near the surface. Distinct calls, believed to be produced by the female, are associated with these groups. Calls recorded from three North Atlantic right whale SAGs and three South Atlantic right whale ( Eubalaena australis ) SAGs were played back to North Atlantic right whales to determine if these sounds are sufficient to attract males to the groups. Playbacks of gunshot sounds produced by North Atlantic right whales were used as a control stimulus. Thirty‐six trials were carried out from 1999 to 2001 in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Whales approached 27 of 31 SAG playbacks and 0 of 5 gunshot playbacks. Where sex was determined ( n = 28), all approaches to North Atlantic SAG recordings were by males. Individuals ( n = 22) of all age and sex classes approached South Atlantic SAG playbacks. These trials indicate that SAG calls from both populations are sufficient to attract right whales to SAGs and that males and females respond differently to stimuli from the North Atlantic. The difference in response to North and South Atlantic SAG stimuli was unexpected. Novelty, species differences in calls, and different seasonal or behavioral context for the recorded stimuli may be responsible for the differences in response.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations42
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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