Resighting and association patterns of bottlenose dolphins (<i>Tursiops truncatus</i>) in the Cedar Keys, Florida: insights into social organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the social organization of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) inhabiting open estuarine systems. Our purpose was to identify and quantify the resightings of bottlenose dolphins and associations formed among them to provide insights into the social organization of the species in the open estuarine system of the Cedar Keys, Florida. We conducted monthly photographic-identification surveys from June 1996 through May 1997. We identified a total of 233 dolphins of which 217 (93%) were classified into one of four categories based on the number of months in which they were sighted. "Rare" dolphins (sighted during 12 months) constituted more than half of these individuals (61%), followed by "occasional" (35 months; 20%), "common" (>8 months; 12%), and "frequent" (56 months; 7%) dolphins. We quantified the associations for dolphins sighted 10 times (26 common, 12 frequent, and 8 occasional) and found that individuals with different resighting patterns associate with each other but the association is mostly at a low level. The level of association among common dolphins, however, was higher within than between the sexes. Association patterns of common dolphins in the Cedar Keys resemble the associations of resident bottlenose dolphins inhabiting closed estuarine bays, suggesting that the selective pressures which induce such associations are the same in these aquatic systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".