MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148956083 · doi:10.1017/s0025315408000295

Incidence of ship strikes of large whales in Washington State

2008· article· en· W2148956083 on OpenAlexaff
Annie B. Douglas, John Calambokidis, Stephen Raverty, Steven Jeffries, Dyanna M. Lambourn, Stephanie A. Norman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalaenopteraWhaleFisheryGeographyHumpback whaleOceanographyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ship strikes of large whales cause mortalities worldwide, but there is uncertainty regarding the frequency and species involved. We examined 130 records (from 1980–2006) of large whale strandings in Washington State. Nineteen strandings (seven species) had evidence of ship-strikes. Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) had the highest incidence of ante-mortem ship strike (five of seven, with the remaining two possibly post-mortem) and all but one occurring since 2002. Six grey whales (Eschrichtius robustus) suffered ‘possible ship strike’ injuries, likely the result of their large numbers in the area, rather than high levels of ship strikes. Only one possible ship-struck humpback whale was recorded, despite concentrations of humpbacks feeding within shipping lanes in this region. This study shows dramatic differences in occurrences of ship-struck large whales by species, which we believe results from a combination of species' vulnerability to ship strikes, and how likely a struck whale is to be caught up on the bow of a ship and brought to waters where it can be examined.

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)0.001
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations67
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United KingdomSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207