Groups of related belugas (<i>Delphinapterus leucas</i>) travel together during their seasonal migrations in and around Hudson Bay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social structure involving long-term associations with relatives should facilitate the learning of complex behaviours such as long-distance migration. In and around Hudson Bay (Canada), three stocks of beluga whales form a panmictic unit, but have different migratory behaviours associated with different summering areas. We analysed genetic variation at 13 microsatellite loci among 1524 belugas, to test hypotheses about social structure in belugas. We found significant proportions of mother-offspring pairs throughout the migratory cycle, but average relatedness extended beyond close kinship only during migration. Average relatedness was significantly above random expectations for pairs caught at the same site but on different days or months of a year, suggesting that belugas maintain associations with a network of relatives during migration. Pairs involving a female (female-female or male-female) were on average more related than pairs of males, and males seemed to disperse from their matrilineal group to associate with other mature males. Altogether, our results indicate that relatives other than strictly parents, and especially females, play a role in maintaining a social structure that could facilitate the learning of migration routes. Cultural conservatism may limit contributions from nearby summer stocks to endangered stocks such as the Eastern Hudson Bay beluga.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".