MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103898816 · doi:10.14430/arctic873

Cetacean Habitat Selection in the Alaskan Arctic during Summer and Autumn

2000· article· en· W2103898816 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sue E. Moore, Douglas P. DeMaster

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitatArcticShoalFisheryOceanographyGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ten years (1982-91) of sighting data from aerial surveys offshore of northern Alaska were analyzed to investigate seasonal variability in cetacean habitat selection. Distinct habitats were described for bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus), white whales (Delphinapterus leucas), and gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) on the basis of habitat selection ratios calculated for bathymetric and ice cover regimes. In summer, bowheads selected continental slope waters and moderate ice conditions; white whales selected slope and basin waters and moderate to heavy ice conditions; and gray whales selected coastal/shoal waters and open water. In autumn, bowheads selected inner shelf waters and light ice conditions; white whales selected outer shelf and slope waters and moderate to heavy ice; and gray whales selected coastal and shoal/trough habitats in light ice and open water. Habitat differences among species were significant in both seasons (ANOVA F > 28, p < 0.00001). Interseasonal depth and ice cover habitats were significantly different for bowhead whales (p < 0.00002), but not for gray whales (p > 0.35). White whale depth habitat was significantly different between seasons (p < 0.00002), but ice cover habitat was not (p < 0.08).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations124
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207