MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547023556 · doi:10.1111/mms.12377

Characterizing alloparental care in the pilot whale (<i>Globicephala melas</i>) population that summers off Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada

2016· article· en· W2547023556 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joana Augusto, Timothy R. Frasier, Hal Whitehead

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Mammal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityDalhousie University
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsNova scotiaCapePopulationDemographyFisheryGeographyBiologySociologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Alloparental care happens when a calf is cared for by an adult that is not their parent. Although alloparental care is common in social mammals, its prevalence is difficult to assess in cetaceans, and has not been studied in Globicephala melas . A population off Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, has been studied from whale‐watching vessels since 1998, during July and August each year. From 2009 to 2011, we collected photo identifications of calves and the adults accompanying them. Alloparental care was considered to be occurring when a calf was identified with more than one companion. We found that 85.7% of calves in 2009, 80.6% of calves in 2010 and 63% of calves in 2011 had alloparents. Mothers were difficult to identify. Nevertheless, none of the other companions of calves were assigned to the same unit as the mother. Five carers were sexed, four of them males. There were no cases of within‐ or between‐year alloparental care reciprocity. It is possible that delayed reciprocity is happening on a larger time scale in this population, but the most likely explanation is that alloparental care is a byproduct of this species’ social structure, with a very small cost to the alloparent's fitness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Mammal ScienceSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207