First observations of young of the year and juvenile great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) scavenging from a whale carcass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observations of great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) scavenging from cetacean carcasses are rare and have only been reported in the scientific literature for large (>3.5 m total length (TL)) individuals. Between 13 October and 25 November 2006, young of the year and juvenile great white sharks were observed scavenging from the carcass of a humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Algoa Bay, South Africa. Although more than one shark scavenged from the carcass, simultaneous feeding was not observed. The sharks showed a clear preference for soft tissue at sites along the mouth of the carcass. Protective ocular rotation was rarely observed and none of the sharks exhibited palatoquadrate protrusion while feeding. These observations provide a new insight into the foraging behaviour of young of the year and juvenile great white sharks. The prevalence of small great white sharks (1.5 m TL) and the absence of any individuals greater than 3.65 m TL suggest that Algoa Bay may function as a nursery area for great white sharks in South Africa. This information is crucial not only to improve our understanding of great white shark biology, but also for their long-term management and conservation in South Africa.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".