MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spatial‐temporal patterns in intra‐annual gray whale foraging: Characterizing interactions between predators and prey in Clayquot Sound, British Columbia, Canada

2008· article· en· W2078118807 on OpenAlexaffabout
Trisalyn Nelson, D.A. Duffus, Colin Robertson, Laura Feyrer

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Mammal Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingPredationWhaleHabitatEcologyBiologyForageFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In Clayquot Sound, British Columbia, gray whales ( Eschrichtius robustus ) forage primarily on mysids (Family Mysideae ) and also on crab larvae (Family Porcellanidae ) that are constrained to specific habitat, which relate to bathymetric depths. In this paper we characterize the interactions of gray whales and their prey by analyzing fine scale spatial‐temporal patterns in foraging gray whale distribution within a season. Kernel density estimators are applied to two seasons (1998 and 2002) of high‐resolution data on foraging by gray whales. By partitioning data from each foraging season into several time periods (12 in 1998 and 11 in 2002), using a temporal autocorrelation function, and generating kernel density estimated surfaces for each time period, it is possible to identify discrete areas of increasing and declining foraging effort. Our results indicate that gray whales forage on mysids throughout a season and opportunistically forage on crab larvae. The episodic crab larvae feeding may reduce, but not eliminate, pressure to mysid populations enabling mysids to reassemble swarms and continue to support gray whale foraging in the latter part of the season. Results suggest that when managing marine environments, gray whale populations require multiple and connected habitats for summer foraging.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.216
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.

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

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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