MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087346212 · doi:10.1121/1.3495946

Singing behavior of fin whales in the Davis Strait with implications for mating, migration and foraging

2010· article· en· W2087346212 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Malene Simon, Kathleen M. Stafford, Kristian Beedholm, Craig M. Lee, Peter T. Madsen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaleenWhaleFinOceanographyArcticForagingLatitudeDiel vertical migrationEnvironmental scienceGeologyFisheryBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most baleen whales undertake migrations between low-latitude breeding grounds and high-latitude feeding grounds. Though little is known about the timing of their migration from the Arctic, fin whales are assumed to undertake a similar migratory pattern. To address questions about habitat use and migrations, the acoustic activity of fin whales in Davis Strait, between Greenland and Canada, was monitored continuously for two years using three bottom-moored acoustic recorders. The acoustic power in the fin whale call frequencies peaked in November-December, showing that fin whales are present in Davis Strait much later in the year than previously expected. The closely timed peaks in song activity and conception time imply that not all fin whales migrate south to mate, but rather start mating at high latitudes rather than or before migrating. Singing activity was strongly linked to daylight hours, suggesting that fin whales might feed during the few daylight hours of the late fall and early Arctic winter. A negative correlation between the advancing sea ice front and power in fin whale frequencies indicates that future changes in sea ice conditions from global warming might change the distribution and migratory patterns of fin whales near the poles.

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)0.001
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 score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations96
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207