Bayesian estimation of humpback whale (<i>Megaptera novaeangliae</i>) population abundance and movement patterns in southeastern Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a mechanistic movement model within a Bayesian framework to estimate survival, abundance, and rate of increase for a population of humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ) subject to a long-term photographic capture–recapture effort in southeastern Alaska, USA (SEAK). Multiple competing models were fitted that differed in movement, recapture rates, and observation error using deviance information criterion. The median annual survival probability in the selected model was 0.996 (95% central probability interval (CrI): 0.984, 0.999), which is among the highest reported for this species. Movement among areas was temporally dynamic, although whales exhibited high area fidelity (probability of returning to same area of ≥0.75) throughout the study. Median abundance was 1585 whales in 2008 (95% CrI: 1455, 1644). Incorporating an abundance estimate of 393 (95% confidence interval: 331, 455) whales from 1986, the median rate of increase was 5.1% (95% CrI: 4.4%, 5.9%). Although applied here to cetaceans in SEAK, the framework provides a flexible approach for estimating mortality and movement in populations that move among sampling 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".