MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2407997566 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2015-0236

Harbor porpoise (<i>Phocoena phocoena</i>) recovery in the inland waters of Washington: estimates of density and abundance from aerial surveys, 2013–2015

2016· article· en· W2407997566 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Thomas A. Jefferson, Mari A. Smultea, Sarah Courbis, Gregory S. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorpoisePhocoenaSound (geography)Abundance (ecology)TransectFisheryAerial surveyOceanographyDistance samplingCetaceaBiologyEnvironmental scienceHarbourGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena (L., 1758)) used to be common in Puget Sound, Washington, but virtually disappeared from these waters by the 1970s. We conducted systematic aerial line-transect surveys (17 237 km total effort) for harbor porpoises, with the goal of estimating density and abundance in the inland waters of Washington State. Surveys in Puget Sound occurred throughout the year from 2013 to 2015, and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the San Juan Islands (and some adjacent Canadian waters) in April 2015. We used a high-wing, twin-engine Partenavia airplane and four observers (one on each side of the plane, one looking through a belly port, and one recording data). A total of 1063 harbor porpoise groups were sighted. Density and abundance were estimated using conventional distance sampling methods. Analyses were limited to 447 harbor porpoise groups observed during 5708 km of effort during good sighting conditions suitable for line-transect analysis. Harbor porpoises occurred in all regions of the study area, with highest densities around the San Juan Islands and in northern Puget Sound. Overall, estimated abundance for the Washington Inland Waters stock was 11 233 porpoises (CV = 37%, 95% CI = 9 616 – 13 120). This project clearly demonstrated that harbor porpoises have reoccupied waters of Puget Sound and are present there in all seasons. However, the specific reasons for their initial decline and subsequent recovery remain uncertain.

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)0.001
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 score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→