Gray whale distribution relative to forage habitat in the northern Bering Sea: current conditions and retrospective summary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hundreds of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) stranded dead along beaches from Mexico to Alaska in 1999 and 2000. The cause of the mortalities remains unknown, but starvation resulting from a reduction in prey, especially in the Chirikov Basin, was suggested as the cause. In the 1980s, the Chirikov Basin was considered a prime gray whale feeding area, but there has been no recent comprehensive assessment of whale or prey distribution and abundance. In 2002, a 5-day survey for gray whales revealed restricted distribution in the basin and a 3- to 17-fold decline in sighting rates. To put these data in context, a retrospective summary of gray whale and benthic fauna distribution and abundance was undertaken. During the 1980s, gray whale sighting rates in the Chirikov Basin were highly variable. Ampeliscid amphipods dominated the benthos where gray whale sighting rates were highest. Available measures of biomass suggest a downturn in amphipod productivity from 1983 to 2000, when estimates of gray whale population size were increasing, suggesting that the whales simply expanded their foraging range. We encourage long-term study of the Chirikov Basin as a location where predatorprey responses to changing ocean climate can be researched, because decadal time series data are available.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".