MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2569716457 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2016-0101

Site fidelity and movement of humpback whales (<i>Megaptera</i> <i>novaeangliae</i>) in the western Gulf of Alaska as revealed by photo-identification

2017· article· en· W2569716457 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Briana Witteveen, Kate Wynne

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsHumpback whaleArchipelagoBiologyFisheryFidelityOceanographyEcologyWhale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe feeding-site fidelity in terms of the rate of annual return by individual humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae (Borowski, 1781)) to Kodiak Archipelago and Shumagin Islands feeding areas and the rate of exchange between these Gulf of Alaska feeding aggregations. Individual whales were photo-identified in both regions between 1999 and 2015 during vessel surveys, either throughout the feeding season (Kodiak region) or in brief 7- to 10-day windows (Shumagin Islands). Feeding-site fidelity was assessed in terms of individuals’ annual return rate, sighting interval, total number of years sighted, and movement between feeding areas. We found similarly high degrees of site fidelity in both regions and limited movement of individuals between them, suggesting that the Shumagin Islands and Kodiak Archipelago represent distinct feeding aggregations. Results did not appear affected by temporal differences in sampling strategy in these study 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)0.001
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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