Kinematic signatures of prey capture from archival tags reveal sex differences in killer whale foraging activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Studies of odontocete foraging ecology have been limited by the challenges of observing prey capture events and outcomes underwater. We sought to determine whether subsurface movement behavior recorded from archival tags could accurately identify foraging events by fish-eating killer whales. We used multisensor bio-logging tags attached by suction cups to Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) to: (1) identify a stereotyped movement signature that co-occurred with visually confirmed prey capture dives; (2) construct a prey capture dive detector and validate it against acoustically confirmed prey capture dives; and (3) demonstrate the utility of the detector by testing hypotheses about foraging ecology. Predation events were significantly predicted by peaks in the rate of change of acceleration (‘jerk peak’), roll angle and heading variance. Detection of prey capture dives by movement signatures enabled substantially more dives to be included in subsequent analyses compared with previous surface or acoustic detection methods. Males made significantly more prey capture dives than females and more dives to the depth of their preferred prey, Chinook salmon. Additionally, only half of the tag deployments on females (5 out of 10) included a prey capture dive, whereas all tag deployments on males exhibited at least one prey capture dive (12 out of 12). This dual approach of kinematic detection of prey capture coupled with hypothesis testing can be applied across odontocetes and other marine predators to investigate the impacts of social, environmental and anthropogenic factors on foraging ecology.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".