Feeding of western gray whales during a seismic survey near Sakhalin Island, Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exxon Neftegas Limited, as operator of the Sakhalin-1 consortium, is developing oil and gas reserves on the continental shelf off northeast Sakhalin Island, Russia. DalMorNefteGeofizika (DMNG) on behalf of the Sakhalin-1 consortium conducted a 3-D seismic survey of the Odoptu license area during 17 August-9 September 2001. A portion of the primary feeding area of the endangered western gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) is located in the vicinity of the seismic survey. This paper presents data to assess whether western gray whale bottom feeding activity, as indicated by visible mud plumes, was affected by seismic operations. The mitigation and monitoring program associated with the seismic survey included aerial surveys during 19 July-19 November 2001. These aerial surveys documented the local and regional distribution, abundance, and bottom feeding activity of western gray whales. Data on gray whale feeding activity before, during and after the seismic survey were collected, with the whales assumed to be feeding on the benthos if mud plumes were observed on the surface. The data were used to assess the influence of seismic survey and other factors (including environmental) on feeding activity of western gray whales. A stepwise multiple regression analysis failed to find a statistically significant effect (alpha = 0.05) of the seismic survey on frequency of occurrence of mud plumes of western gray whales used as a proxy to evaluate bottom feeding activity in Piltun feeding area. The regression indicated that transect number (a proxy for water depth, related to distance from shore) and swell height (a proxy for sea state) were the only variables that had a significant effect on frequency of whale mud plumes. It is concluded that the 2001 seismic survey had no measurable effect (alpha = 0.05) on bottom feeding activity of western gray whales off Sakhalin Island.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".