Trends in cetacean abundance in the Gully submarine canyon, 1988–2011, highlight a 21% per year increase in Sowerby’s beaked whales (<i>Mesoplodon bidens</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long time series of abundance data have advanced ecological understanding. I examined trends in incidental sightings of cetaceans in the Gully and neighbouring submarine canyons on the edge of the Scotian Shelf during summers between 1988 and 2011. There were a total of 2938 h of sighting effort in good conditions. I fit Poisson models to the sighting count data, and examined the support for models that included parameters representing monthly variations in abundance, trends over years, and different sighting rates in the different canyons. Sowerby’s beaked whales (Mesoplodon bidens (Sowerby, 1804)) were sighted 3.5 times more often in the Shortland and Haldimand canyons, compared with the Gully. For all other species, the best-supported models did not include differential sighting rates between canyons. The sighting rates of four species decreased over the 23 years of the study, while three species increased. Some of these trends may be related to changes in overall population size or variation in food resources, but a remarkable 21%/year increase in Sowerby’s beaked whale is perhaps most plausibly explained by a reduction in anthropogenic disturbance.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".