THE TROPHIC ROLE OF MARINE MAMMALS IN THE NORTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The trophic role of apex predators was evaluated in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence ecosystem. An Ecopath model was developed for the period 1985–1987 prior to the collapse of commercially exploited demersal fish stocks in this area. Marine mammal trophic levels were estimated by the model at 4.1 for cetaceans, 4.4 for harp seals ( Pagophilus groenlandicus ), 4.7 for hooded seals ( Cystophora cristata ), 4.5 for gray seals ( Halichoerus grypus ), and 4.3 for harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina ). Harp seals were the third most important predator on vertebrate prey following large Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua ) and redfish ( Sebastes spp.). Different seal species preyed on different levels of the food chain. Harp seals preyed on most trophic groups, whereas larger seals, such as gray seals and hooded seals, mainly consumed higher trophic levels. The model suggested that apex predators had a negative effect on their dominant prey, the higher trophic level fish, but an indirect positive feedback on the prey of their preferred prey, mainly American plaice ( Hippoglossoides platessoides ), flounders, skates, and benthic invertebrates. Our results suggest that both marine mammals and fisheries had an impact on the trophic structure.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".