Comparative feeding habits of the fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), sea lion (Eumetopias jubata) and harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) on the British Columbia coast.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feeding habits of fur seals (Callhorinus ursinus), sea lions (Eumetopias jubata) and harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) have been examined along the British Columbia coast. Collections were made out to 35 miles from shore. All pertinent published and unpublished data have been combined with the object of assessing the effect of pinniped predation upon commercially valuable fish stocks. A total of 126 harbour seal stomachs, 2,113 fur seal stomachs and 393 sea lion stomachs were available. Comparative anatomy of the digestive tract was examined and notable differences were found in the relatively longer digestive tract and late eruption of permanent teeth in the sea lion. Published data indicate that fur seals, sea lions, and harbour seals eat an amount of food equal to 6%of their body weight per day with a range of 2% to 11%. All samples were grouped as to season and area of collection and comparative seasonal feeding habits were discussed. The effect of the reproductive period upon feeding habits was examined: there is little evidence regarding fur seal feeding habits on the rookeries except for conflicting observations made on harem bulls; the majority of the sea lion rookery population fasts for a few days only, during pupping; harbour seals on the Skeena River appear to fast for at least part of June. There is no evidence of interspecific competition between the three species studied on the British Columbia coast. Sea lions and harbour seals each year eat an estimated amount equivalent to 1.6% of the annual commercial salmon catch and 2.7% of the annual commercial herring catch. Predation at this level is believed to be of negligible importance in the reduction of existing salmon and herring stocks. Insufficient data from waters greater than 35 miles from shore precludes an assessment of fur seal predation upon ocean salmon. Further offshore collections should be made.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".