MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120864004 · doi:10.1093/conphys/cot006

Overcoming the challenges of studying conservation physiology in large whales: a review of available methods

2013· review· en· W2120864004 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen E. Hunt, Michael J. Moore, Rosalind M. Rolland, Nick Kellar, A. Hall, Joanna Kershaw, Stephen Raverty, Cristina E. Davis, Laura C. Yeates, Deborah Fauquier, Teri Rowles, Scott D. Kraus

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Physiology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsAbbotsford Veterinary Clinic
FundersNational Center for Research Resources
KeywordsBiologyBlubberZoologyPhysiologyEcologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large whales are subjected to a variety of conservation pressures that could be better monitored and managed if physiological information could be gathered readily from free-swimming whales. However, traditional approaches to studying physiology have been impractical for large whales, because there is no routine method for capture of the largest species and there is presently no practical method of obtaining blood samples from free-swimming whales. We review the currently available techniques for gathering physiological information on large whales using a variety of non-lethal and minimally invasive (or non-invasive) sample matrices. We focus on methods that should produce information relevant to conservation physiology, e.g. measures relevant to stress physiology, reproductive status, nutritional status, immune response, health, and disease. The following four types of samples are discussed: faecal samples, respiratory samples ('blow'), skin/blubber samples, and photographs. Faecal samples have historically been used for diet analysis but increasingly are also used for hormonal analyses, as well as for assessment of exposure to toxins, pollutants, and parasites. Blow samples contain many hormones as well as respiratory microbes, a diverse array of metabolites, and a variety of immune-related substances. Biopsy dart samples are widely used for genetic, contaminant, and fatty-acid analyses and are now being used for endocrine studies along with proteomic and transcriptomic approaches. Photographic analyses have benefited from recently developed quantitative techniques allowing assessment of skin condition, ectoparasite load, and nutritional status, along with wounds and scars from ship strikes and fishing gear entanglement. Field application of these techniques has the potential to improve our understanding of the physiology of large whales greatly, better enabling assessment of the relative impacts of many anthropogenic and ecological pressures.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations229
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation PhysiologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207