MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149974356 · doi:10.1139/z08-028

Age estimation for young bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) using annual baleen growth increments

2008· article· en· W2149974356 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susan Lubetkin, Judith E. Zeh, C. Rosa, John C. George

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsBaleenBiologyWhaleCetaceaPopulationZoologyFisheryDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compiled age estimates and baleen plate δ 13 C data from 86 bowhead whales ( Balaena mysticetus L., 1758). We used previous whale age estimates based on aspartic acid racemization (AAR) and corpora counts to extend the use of δ 13 C data for age determination from cycle counting to a modified exponential model using annual baleen growth increments. Our approach used the growth increment data from individual whales in a nonlinear mixed effects model to assess both population-level and whale-specific growth parameters. Although age estimates from baleen-based models become less precise as the whales age, and baleen growth and length near steady state, the growth increment model shows promise in estimating ages of bowhead whales 10–13.5 m long with baleen lengths <250 cm, where other techniques are less precise or the data are scarce. Ages estimated using the growth increment data from such whales ranged from 6.4 to 19.8 years.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations70
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207