MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112228799 · doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2004.02.002

Deep-ocean predation by a high Arctic cetacean

2004· article· en· W2112228799 on OpenAlexafffund
K. L. Laidre, Mads Peter Heide‐Jørgensen, Ole A Jørgensen, Margaret A. Treble

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersU.S. Geological SurveySchool of Aquatic and Fishery SciencesNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationFisheries and Oceans CanadaNunavut Wildlife Research TrustNational Marine Fisheries ServiceComisión de Investigaciones CientíficasUniversity of Washington
KeywordsHalibutCapelinFisheryBayPredationArcticBiomass (ecology)OceanographyPopulationWhaleEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeographyEcologyGeologyFish <Actinopterygii>Demography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A bioenergetic model for two narwhal (Monodon monoceros) sub-populations was developed to quantify daily gross energy requirements and estimate the biomass of Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) needed to sustain the sub-populations for their 5-month stay on wintering grounds in Baffin Bay. Whales in two separate wintering grounds were estimated to require 700 tonnes (s.e. 300) and 90 tonnes (s.e. 40) of Greenland halibut per day, assuming a diet of 50% Greenland halibut. Mean densities and length distributions of Greenland halibut inside and outside of the narwhal wintering grounds were correlated with predicted whale predation levels based on diving behavior. The difference in Greenland halibut biomass between an area with high predation and a comparable area without whales, approximately 19 000 tonnes, corresponded well with the predicted biomass removed by the narwhal sub-population on a diet of 50–75% Greenland halibut.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations44
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207