Behavioural Changes in Belugas (<i>Delphinapterus leucas</i>) During a Killer Whale (<i>Orcinus orca</i>) Attack in Southwest Hudson Bay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) were observed on 4 August 2012 attacking Belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) at high tide near the mouth of the Seal River (59°9'19"N, 94°45'28"W) in southwest Hudson Bay, near the location where six Belugas had been fitted with satellite transmitters three weeks earlier. The distribution of Belugas was analyzed before, during, and after the attack. In the presence of Killer Whales, the six Belugas altered their behaviour by reducing their combined range size from 285 km2 four days before the attack to 172 km2 on the day of the attack. Their range more than tripled, to 655 km2, in the days immediately following the attack before returning to the pre-attack size. Following the attack, the tagged Belugas expanded their range northward, going from a mean pre-attack distance of 9.4 km from the attack site to a maximum of 23.5 km. Visual observations of Belugas clumping together and moving toward shore corroborated satellite data. This evasive behaviour by Belugas was different from that reported for Narwhals (Monodon monoceros) suggesting that the two monodontid species may have evolved different survival strategies related to the risk of Killer Whale predation. With predicted changes to Arctic sea ice, the summeringhabitat of Belugas will be available to their main predator for longer periods. A better understanding of Beluga behaviour and risk of predation is required for Beluga conservation and stock management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".