MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060767214 · doi:10.1139/z03-207

Visual health assessment of North Atlantic right whales (<i>Eubalaena glacialis</i>) using photographs

2004· article· en· W2060767214 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heather M. Pettis, Rosalind M. Rolland, Philip K. Hamilton, Solange Brault, Amy R. Knowlton, Scott D. Kraus

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRight whaleEndangered speciesIce calvingBiologyPopulationFisheryCetaceaWhaleDemographyZoologyEcologyPregnancyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although trends in reproduction, mortality, and entanglement events have been analyzed for the endangered North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) population, no method has been available to assess individual right whale health. Here, we describe a technique for assessing health based on evaluation of selected physical parameters from archived photographs of right whales. A scoring system was developed to assess body and skin condition, blowhole cyamids, and rake marks in over 200 000 photographs. Comparison of body condition scores of females during calving and noncalving years found that females were significantly thinner in calving years and in the year after calving compared with the year before calving, showing that changes in body condition known to occur during the reproductive cycle can be successfully evaluated from photographs. Comparison of scores for all parameters between living whales and whales with more than a 5-year gap in sighting history ("presumed dead") found that presumed dead whales received health assessment scores indicating compromised health with body condition emerging as a key visual indicator. This health assessment method provides a new tool to monitor health trends in right whales at individual and population levels and may provide a model for assessments of other well-photographed cetaceans.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations159
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207