Segregation of migration by feeding ground origin in North Atlantic humpback whales (<i>Megaptera novaeangliae</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Results from a large‐scale, capture—recapture study of humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in the North Atlantic show that migration timing is influenced by feeding ground origin. No significant differences were observed in the number of individuals from any feeding area that were re‐sighted in the common breeding area in the West Indies. However, there was a relationship between the proportion (logit transformed) of West Indies sightings and longitude ( r 2 =0.97, F 1,3 =98.27, P =0.0022) suggesting that individuals feeding farther to the east are less likely to winter in the West Indies. A relationship was also detected between sighting date in the West Indies and feeding area. Mean sighting dates in the West Indies for individuals identified in the Gulf of Maine and eastern Canada were significantly earlier than those for animals identified in Greenland, Iceland and Norway (9.97 days, t 179 =3.53, P =0.00054). There was also evidence for sexual segregation in migration; males were seen earlier on the breeding ground than were females (6.63 days, t 105 =1.98, P =0.050). This pattern was consistently observed for animals from all feeding areas; a combined model showed a significant effect for both sex ( F 1 =5.942, P =0.017) and feeding area ( F 3 =4.756, P =0.0038). The temporal difference in occupancy of the West Indies between individuals from different feeding areas, coupled with sexual differences in migratory patterns, presents the possibility that there are reduced mating opportunities between individuals from different high latitude areas.
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".