MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116773960 · doi:10.14430/arctic787

Dive Behaviour of Belugas (<i>Delphinapterus leucas</i>) in the Shallow Waters of Western Hudson Bay

2001· article· en· W2116773960 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anthony R. Martin, Patricia A. Hall, Pierre R. Richard

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsGovernment of CanadaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersUniversity of Pittsburgh
KeywordsBayOceanographyBeluga WhaleBenthic zoneWhaleWaves and shallow waterLeucasPopulationGeologyEnvironmental scienceFisheryArctic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beluga diving was studied in western Hudson Bay, where the preferred habitat of this whale in summer is shallow coastal waters. No relationship was found between the duration of a dive and the surface interval either preceding or following it. During rare periods of intense diving, 77% of an average dive cycle was spent below the water surface. Only in waters deeper than 25 m did any whale spend more than half its time below the surface zone; in rivers, less than 15% of the time was spent at depths of 4 m or more. The frequency of long dives increased with water depth. Maximum dive duration was 15.6 min. Dives to depths of 25 m or less were of variable duration and time-depth profile; most dives exceeding 50 m had a square profile and reached the seabed. The easterly migration in early September took the whales into water deeper than 100 m for the first time in several months, and they dived frequently to the bottom during this period. No clear difference in dive capability was found between western Hudson Bay belugas and those that inhabit deeper waters farther north. The preference of this population for shallow water in summer is not dictated by an inability to dive to greater depths; belugas can utilize benthic resources throughout Hudson Bay.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207