Geographic variation in ringed seal (<i>Pusa</i> <i>hispida</i>) growth rate and body size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We summarize geographical patterns in ringed seal (Pusa hispida (Schreber, 1775)) body length and girth growth using 3012 samples collected by Inuit hunters in the eastern Canadian Arctic from 1990 to 2016. Spatial structure was detected using cluster analysis of environmental variables separating a northern region in the eastern Canadian High Arctic and a southern region in Hudson Bay. The north was characterized by more fast ice, multiyear ice, greater snow depth, colder temperatures, and greater sea-ice concentration in the spring seal breeding season. Hierarchical Bayesian models described length and axillary girth growth of northern seals as slower than in the south, reaching asymptotic size 5–7 years later. Northern females were larger than males (asymptotic length of 149 versus 140 cm, respectively) and both were larger than southern seals (males and females 126 cm). We conclude that environmental variation was best represented by regions rather than latitude, regional body size differences were driven by differential growth rates, and northern ringed seals may be characterized by reverse sexual size dimorphism.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".