PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION OF NORTHERN BOTTLENOSE WHALES (<i>HYPEROODON AMPULLATUS</i>): SOURCES OF HETEROGENEITY FROM NATURAL MARKS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract The use of natural marks in capture‐recapture studies can lead to unequal capture probabilities. This paper examined a catalog of northern bottlenose whale ( Hyperoodon ampullatus ) photographs from the Gully, Nova Scotia, to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. This information can be used to select appropriate individuals and photographs to include in analyses. Individual northern bottlenose whales were sufficiently marked to uniquely identify individuals (x̄= 14.5 marks/individual; range 1‐67), but not all mark types persisted over time. Reliable marks were defined as mark types that were not lost over the nine‐yeat study period (notches, back indentation, and mottled patches). Individuals were considered reliably marked if they possessed at least one back indentation or mottled patch (located within one dorsal fin width, at the base of the dorsal fin) or a notch on the dorsal fin. Sixty‐six percent (SE = 5%) of the population were reliably marked. Longterm analyses (months to years) should use only reliably marked individuals, and the results scaled to account for the rest of the population. Our results also showed that photographic quality affected an observer's ability to identify individuals. For this catalog, quantitative analysis indicated only photographs of Q ≥ 4 (on a 6‐point scale with 6 representing the highest quality) should be included in mark‐recapture analyses sensitive to heterogeneity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it