Comparative swimming effort of migrating gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) and calf cost of transport along Costa Azul, Baja California, Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Swimming velocities and breathing rates were measured for migrating gray whales ( Eschrichtius robustus (Lilljeborg, 1861)) at Costa Azul, Baja California, to compare swimming effort of southbound whales, northbound whales without calves, and northbound mothers and calves. From December 2004 to May 2005, whales were followed using a theodolite to determine swimming velocity. Binoculars were used to count whale blows and their timings were recorded to determine breathing rates. Individual whale breathing rates (BR) were divided by their swimming velocity (V) to derive a comparative index of swimming effort in units of breaths per kilometre. There were significant differences in mean BR, V, and swimming effort among the three migrating groups (p < 0.05). Southbound migrating whales averaged a swimming effort of 7.4 breaths·km–1(V = 1.9 m·s–1, BR = 0.8 breaths·min–1). Northbound whales without calves showed the lowest swimming effort of the three migrating groups (4.7 breaths·km–1, V = 1.8 m·s–1, BR = 0.5 breaths·min–1). Northbound mothers and calves had the same swimming velocity (V = 1.2 m·s–1), but BR and swimming effort were calculated separately yielding a swimming effort of 7.6 breaths·km–1(BR = 0.5 breaths·min–1) for mothers and 10.1 breaths·km–1(BR = 0.7 breaths·min–1) for calves. Cost of transport was calculated for northbound calves, yielding a range based on 1.5% and 3% tidal volumes of 0.25–0.34 and 0.51–0.58 J·kg–1·m–1, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".