Population estimate and inter-island movement of sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus, in the Eastern Caribbean Sea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a population extends across international boundaries, management becomes more complex. This is especially true within a confined multinational area such as the Caribbean Sea. The population size of sperm whales in the Eastern Caribbean is estimated and the inter-island movements of individuals are quantified using a database of 1,394 photographic identifications taken between 1984 and 2006 by several research groups. A total of 194 individual sperm whales were identified off the leeward coasts of the islands of Dominica, Guadeloupe, Grenada, St. Lucia and Martinique. Population size was estimated using two-component finite mixture models. About 145 (95% CI=94- 219) sperm whales used Lesser Antillean waters in 1995 and this population appears to be growing slowly. There are differences amongst the individuals in their probability of identification. Of all individuals, 57 (29.4%) were identified during more than one year between 1995 and 2006. Long-term reidentification of associated females suggests that social units may be using the area for periods of at least 11 years. Twenty seven confirmed matches were made between islands, the majority (92.6%) of which were between Guadeloupe and Dominica, although there were two longer movements by single individuals between Dominica and the islands of St. Lucia and Grenada. High reidentification rates within the Lesser Antilles and no matches with identifications from nearby seas suggest the population in the Eastern Caribbean Sea is small and quite isolated. As such, we recommend that management actions be taken on a multi-island basis for the Eastern Caribbean, by encouraging the ratification of the SPAW protocols and that the current stock classification for the North Atlantic be reconsidered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".