Bibliographic record
Abstract
The worldwide literature on management of spotted seals, Phoca largha, was reviewed and updated, and aerial surveys weref lown in 1992 and 1993 to determine the species' distribution and abundance in U.S. waters. In April, spotted seals were found only in the Bering Sea ice front. In June, they were seen along deteriorating ice floes and fast ice in Norton Sound. Surveys along most of Alaska's western coast in August and September found over 2,500 spotted seals in Kuskokwim Bay and concentrations of 100-400 seals around Nunivak Island, Scammon Bay, Golovnin Bay/Norton Sound, Cape Espenberg/Kotzebue Sound, and Kasegaluk Lagoon. All of these sites have been used by spotted seals in the past. The sum of the highest counts, irrespective of year, was 3,570 seals (CV =0.06). This is not an abundance estimate for all spotted seals in the Bering Sea, because it does not account for animals in the water, and we did not survey the Asian coast and some islands. Also, spotted seals and harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, are too similar in appearance to be identified accurately from the air, so our results probably include a mix of these species where their ranges overlap.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.985 | 0.989 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".