Population, density estimates, and conservation of river dolphins (<i>Inia</i>and<i>Sotalia</i>) in the Amazon and Orinoco river basins
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study is part of an on‐going effort to evaluate and monitor river dolphin populations in South America. It comprises the largest initiative to estimate population size and densities of Inia and Sotalia dolphins using statistically robust and standardized methods. From May 2006 to August 2007, seven visual surveys were conducted in selected large rivers of Bolivia, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela in the Amazon and Orinoco river basins. Population sizes of Inia and Sotalia were estimated for different habitats (main river, tributary, lake, island, confluence, and channel). A total of 291 line and 890 strip transects were conducted, covering a distance of 2,704 linear kilometers. We observed 778 Inia geoffrensis , 1,323 Inia boliviensis , and 764 Sotalia fluviatilis . High‐density areas were identified (within 200 m from the river banks, confluences, and lakes) and we propose that these constitute critical habitat for river dolphins. High densities of river dolphins seem to coincide with well‐managed freshwater protected areas and should be considered as hot spots for river dolphins in South America.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it