MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891175355 · doi:10.14430/arctic4735

Seal Occurrence and Habitat Use during Summer in Petermann Fjord, Northwestern Greenland

2018· article· en· W2891175355 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kate Lomac-MacNair, Martin Jakobsson, Alan C Mix, Francis Freire, Kelly Hogan, Larry A. Mayer, Mari A. Smultea

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Polar ProgramsBritish Antarctic SurveyPolarforskningssekretariatetNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFjordSeal (emblem)OceanographyGlacierHabitatArctic ice packSea iceGeologyFisheryPhysical geographyGeographyBiologyEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ice-associated seals are considered especially susceptible and are potentially the first to modify distribution and habitat use in response to physical changes associated with the changing climate. Petermann Glacier, part of a unique ice-tongue fjord environment in a rarely studied region of northwestern Greenland, lost substantial sections of its ice tongue during major 2010 and 2012 calving events. As a result, changes in seal habitat may have occurred. Seal occurrence and distribution data were collected in Petermann Fjord and adjacent Nares Strait region over 27 days (2 to 28 August) during the multidisciplinary scientific Petermann 2015 Expedition on the icebreaker Oden. During 239.4 hours of dedicated observation effort, a total of 312 individuals were recorded, representing four species: bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus), hooded seal (Crystophora cristata), harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus), and ringed seal (Pusa hispida). Ringed seals were recorded significantly more than the other species (χ2 = 347.4, df = 3, p < 0.001, n = 307). We found significant differences between species in haul-out (resting on ice) behavior (χ2 = 133.1, df = 3, p < 0.001, n = 307). Bearded seals were more frequently hauled out (73.1% n = 49), whereas ringed seals were almost exclusively in water (93.9%, n = 200). Differences in average depth and ice coverage where species occurred were also significant: harp seals and bearded seals were found in deeper water and areas of greater ice coverage (harp seals: 663 ± 366 m and 65 ± 14% ice cover; bearded seals: 598 ± 259 m and 50 ± 21% ice cover), while hooded seals and ringed seals were found in shallower water with lower ice coverage (hooded seals: 490 ± 163 m and 38 ± 19% ice cover; ringed seals: 496 ± 235 m, and 21 ± 20% ice cover). Our study provides an initial look at how High Arctic seals use the rapidly changing Petermann Fjord and how physical variables influence their distribution in one of the few remaining ice-tongue fjord environments.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207