Postrelease movement of rehabilitated harbor seal (<i>Phoca vitulina richardii</i>) pups compared with cohort‐matched wild seal pups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina richardii ) populations in the inland waters of Washington and British Columbia are at or near carrying capacity. Stranded pups often are collected and admitted to rehabilitation centers, and then released when they reach a weight of 22 kg and meet a variety of preestablished health and release conditions. While rehabilitation is common practice, it is unclear if rehabilitated seal pups behave like wild weaned pups. Using satellite transmitters, we compared movement patterns of 10 rehabilitated pups with 10 wild weaned pups. When released, rehabilitated seals were longer and heavier than wild pups, while wild pups had a larger mean axillary girth. No clinically different blood parameters were detected. On average, rehabilitated harbor seal pups traveled nearly twice as far cumulatively, almost three times as far daily, and dispersed over three times as far from the release site compared to wild weaned seals. Additionally, wild harbor seals transmitted nearly twice as long as did rehabilitated seals. These patterns suggest that learned behavior during the brief 3–4 wk nursing period likely enables wild harbor seal pups to move less daily and remain closer to their weaning site than rehabilitated pups.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".