Blue and fin whale acoustic presence around Antarctica during 2003 and 2004
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 Seasonal and spatial variations of blue ( Balaenoptera musculus ) and fin whale ( B. physalus ) calls were analyzed from recordings collected with Acoustic Recording Packages (ARPs) deployed between January 2003 and July 2004 at four circumpolar locations: the Western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP), the Scotia Sea (SS), Eastern Antarctica (EA), and the Ross Sea (RS). Call characteristics were compared among sites using the average pressure spectrum levels from 1 month of data at each location. Presence of calls was analyzed using automatic call detection and acoustic power analysis methods. Blue whale calls were recorded year‐round, with the highest detections in February–May and November. This suggests that the blue whale population may not migrate synchronously, and may indicate long duration calls are more common during migrations. Fin whale calls were detected only during February–July. Two distinct fin whale call types were recorded, suggesting a possible separation into two populations. The calls at the EA site had a secondary frequency peak in the pressure spectrum at 99 Hz and the calls at the WAP and the SS sites had a peak at 89 Hz. No fin whale calls were detected at the RS site. Acoustics are a good tool to monitor large whales in the Southern Ocean.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it