MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140919158 · doi:10.1080/00288330.2002.9517115

Photo‐identification of short‐beaked common dolphins <i>(Delphinus delphis)</i> in north‐east New Zealand: A photo‐catalogue of recognisable individuals

2002· article· en· W2140919158 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dirk Neumann, Alexandra Leitenberger, Mark B. Orams

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitetet i BergenUniversity of Regina
KeywordsDelphinus delphisBayFisheryGeographyOceanographyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Photo‐identification has been established as a helpful tool in cetacean research. However, no study to date has attempted to apply this method to short‐beaked common dolphins (Delphinus delphis L.). We present here the results of two studies that were conducted concurrently in Mercury Bay and the Hauraki Gulf on the north‐east coast of New Zealand's North Island. Methods for distinguishing between individual dolphins are discussed. Sighting records of recognisable individuals indicate that some common dolphins move between Mercury Bay and the Hauraki Gulf (100 km distance), as well as between Mercury Bay and Whakatane (200 km distance). Common dolphin abundance and site fidelity appeared to be greater in the Hauraki Gulf than in Mercury Bay. A selection of photographs of distinct individuals is presented to allow future studies to compare their sighting records to ours, which may help establish the extent of home ranges, site fidelity, and possibly even longevity for common dolphins.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations39
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater ResearchSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207