MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2086600965 · doi:10.1139/z03-085

Diving behaviour during the breeding season in the terrestrially breeding male grey seal: implications for alternative mating tactics

2003· article· en· W2086600965 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Damian C. Lidgard, Daryl J. Boness, W. Don Bowen, Jim I. McMillan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsForagingBiologyNova scotiaSeasonal breederMatingZoologyFur sealEcologyFisheryGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the diving behaviour of breeding male grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) at Sable Island, Nova Scotia, from 1997 to 2001. The proportion of time spent at sea varied between 0 and 78% (N = 30). Males engaged in deep (43.4 ± 3.3 m (mean ± SE), N = 27) diving, and these dives were clustered into bouts, which mostly occurred during long trips (62.2 ± 14.7 h). We suggest that males spent time foraging during deep dives. Shallow diving (5.9 ± 0.1 m, N = 27) accounted for 40.8% of dives, which were also clustered into bouts that mostly occurred during short trips (2.1 ± 0.37 h). We suggest that shallow diving comprised a suite of behaviours, but included little foraging behaviour. Phenotypic traits had little influence on diving behaviour. Further work is required to understand the extent to which foraging behaviour enhances reproductive success, and whether shallow diving is a component of the mating tactics of male grey seals at Sable Island.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→