Specialization and development of beach hunting, a rare foraging behavior, by wild bottlenose dolphins (<i>Tursiops</i> sp.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foraging behaviors of bottlenose dolphins vary within and among populations, but few studies attempt to address the causes of individual variation in foraging behavior. We examined how ecological, social, and developmental factors relate to the use of a rare foraging tactic by wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp. Gervais, 1855) in Shark Bay, Western Australia. Beach hunting involves partial and nearly complete stranding on beach shores. Over 10 years of observation, only four adults and their calves were observed beach hunting in more than 1 year. Of two adult beach hunters observed in detail, one was more specialized in beach hunting than the other, indicating substantial flexibility in degree of use. Only calves born to beach hunters developed the tactic, although complete stranding was not observed at least up to 5 years of age. Beach hunters used shallow, inshore habitats significantly more than others and were more likely to hunt during incoming tide. Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes were not consistent with strict matrilineal transmission. Thus, beach hunting likely involves vertical social learning by calves, while individual, horizontal, and (or) oblique learning may occur among individuals who frequent coastal habitats.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".