MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088279102 · doi:10.1139/z05-089

Vocal repertoire and acoustic behavior of the isolated AT1 killer whale subpopulation in southern Alaska

2005· article· en· W2088279102 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eva Saulitis, Craig O. Matkin, Francis H. Fay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyContext (archaeology)ZoologySciaenidaeSympatric speciationEcologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Killer whales, Orcinus orca (L., 1758), in the North Pacific are classified as three genetically distinct ecotypes: residents (fish-eaters), transients (mammal-eaters), and offshores (probable fish-eaters). Within the transient ecotype, three putative subpopulations have been identified by genetic analysis: West Coast transients, Gulf of Alaska transients, and AT1 transients. Here, we examine the behavior and vocalizations of the AT1 transients, which are found only in the Prince William Sound/Kenai Fjords region, to determine if their acoustic behavior distinguishes them from other genetically distinct transient subpopulations. We identified 14 discrete, pulsed calls in the vocal repertoire of the AT1 transients. These calls were entirely different than those of West Coast and sympatric Gulf of Alaska transients. Despite their large call repertoire, AT1 transients were silent most of the time, utilizing a foraging strategy of stealth, acoustic crypsis, and passive listening for locating marine-mammal prey. Unlike resident killer whales, AT1 transient vocalization types were context specific. For example, lone AT1 transients produced long-distance, high-amplitude pulsed calls in stereotyped sequences to locate other AT1 whales. In contrast, hunting individuals emitted low-amplitude pulsed calls to maintain contact with group members. The repertoire and call-usage patterns of the AT1 transients are consistent with genetic evidence that they are a unique, reproductively and socially isolated subpopulation in danger of extinction.

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations49
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207