MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331254020 · doi:10.3354/esr00420

Differences in diving and movement patterns of two groups of beluga whales in a changing Arctic environment reveal discrete populations

2012· article· en· W2331254020 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Frédéric Bailleul, Véronique Lesage, Michael Power, DW Doidge, MO Hammill

Bibliographic record

VenueEndangered Species Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsMakivik CorporationUniversity of WaterlooInstitut du Savoir Montfort
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaArcticNet
KeywordsBeluga WhaleBelugaArcticBayGeographyMarine mammalFisheryClimate changeRight whaleHabitatEcologyOceanographyWhaleBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harvest and global climate change are among the major ongoing threats to most Arctic marine mammal populations. Affected by commercial hunting in the past, beluga whales Delphinapterus leucas are still harvested for subsistence in many coastal areas of the Canadian Arctic, while ongoing climate changes are suspected to modify factors that may have determined the distribution and degree of interaction of the different populations. Although several populations have been clearly identified, the global discreteness of the Arctic metapopulation is not yet clearly established. In this study, seasonal diving activity and movement patterns of 46 belugas from 2 neighbouring groups in Hudson Bay (Canada) were analysed in relation to physical environmental characteristics and revealed significantly different migratory and habitat use patterns. Likely affected by local environmental conditions, the Eastern Hudson Bay beluga migrate, while the James Bay beluga remain resident, suggesting little overlap between the groups at all times of the year. This study provides useful baseline data for determining population interactions and habitat use. The information is also potentially useful in identifying critical habitat, which is an essential component to design and implement management and conservation policy, e.g. quota and harvesting regulations and the design of marine protected areas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndangered Species ResearchSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207