Movement Patterns of Hooded Seals (<i>Cystophora cristata</i>) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean During the Post-Moult and Pre-Breed Seasons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Movement patterns of hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) in the Northwest Atlantic in the period following moulting and prior to breeding are not well known. Here, we describe in detail the movement patterns of 21 seals for this period based on information gathered from satellite linked time depth recorders (SLTDRs). This study provides important baseline information necessary to understand the ecological requirements and patterns in habitat selection for the species. Adult and sub-adult hooded seals were tagged with SLTDRs directly after moulting in SE Greenland during July 2004July , 2005July and 2007. . Due to variation in tag date and arrival date to the breeding grounds, data between 1 Aug-28 Feb were used which gave all seals a track duration of 211 days (212 in 2005) except for one juvenile where the tag lasted for only 154 days. The tags yielded 36 107 location fixes (SD = 410.64, mean = 1 719.38). Although there was individual variation between seal trajectories during migration, the population shared a similar overall pattern. After moulting in July individuals travelled along the continental shelf area up to Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, thereafter moving southwards along the Labrador shelf until they arrived at the breeding grounds by March. Females tended to cut across the Labrador Sea and arrived at the Labrador shelf before heading up to the Baffin Bay area, while males tended to move straight there. The majority of the seals ended up at the Front (off Newfoundland and Southern Labrador) by March although a few of the tagged seals may have belonged to the Davis Strait breeding population and one male belonged to the Gulf of St. Lawrence breeding population. Seven seals displayed an eastward migratory pull and might have overlapped with the Northeast Atlantic population. This would support the theory of a panmitic population 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".