MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915980889 · doi:10.47536/jcrm.v15i1.511

Updated marine mammal distribution and abundance estimates in British Columbia

2023· article· en· W2915980889 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Benjamin D. Best, Caroline H. Fox, Rob Williams, Patrick N. Halpin, Paul C. Paquet

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œjournal of cetacean research and management. Special issue · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaRaincoast Conservation FoundationUniversity of Victoria
FundersRaincoast Conservation FoundationVancouver FoundationMarisla FoundationMcLean FoundationGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsPorpoisePhocoenaBalaenopteraDistance samplingMinke whaleWhaleAbundance (ecology)TransectFisheryCetaceaEnvironmental scienceAerial surveyMarine mammalPopulationHumpback whaleGeographyEcologyOceanographyBiologyHarbourCartographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information relating to the distribution and abundance of species is critical for effective conservation and management. For many species, including cetacean species of conservation concern, abundance estimates are lacking, out of date and/or highly uncertain. Systematic, line-transect marine mammal surveys were conducted in British Columbia’s (BC) coastal waters over multiple years and seasons (summer 2004, 2005, 2008, and spring/autumn 2007). In total, 10,057km of transects were surveyed in an 83,547km2 study area. Abundance estimates were calculated using two different methods: Conventional Distance Sampling (CDS) and Density Surface Modelling (DSM). CDS generates a single density estimate for each stratum, whereas DSM explicitly models spatial variation and offers potential for greater precision by incorporating environmental predictors. Although DSM yields a more relevant product for the purposes of marine spatial planning, CDS has proven to be useful in cases where there are fewer observations available for seasonal and inter-annual comparison, particularly for the scarcely observed elephant seal. The summer abundance estimates (with lower and upper 95% confidence intervals; all DSM method unless otherwise stated), assuming certain trackline detection (underestimates true population size) were: harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) 8,091 (4,885–13,401); Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) 5,303 (4,638–6,064); Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) 22,160 (16,522–29,721); humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 1,092 (993–1,200); fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) 329 (274–395); killer whale (all ecotypes; Orcinus orca), 371 (222–621); common minke whale (B. acutorostrata) 522 (295–927); harbour seal (total; Phoca vitulina) 24,916 (19,666–31,569); Steller sea lion (total; Eumetopias jubatus) 4,037 (1,100–14,815); and northern elephant seal (CDS method; Mirounga angustirostris) 65 (35–121). Abundance estimates are provided on a stratum-specific basis with additional estimates provided for Steller sea lions and harbour seals that were ‘hauled out’ and ‘in water’. This analysis updates previous estimates by including additional years of effort, providing greater spatial precision with the DSM method over CDS, novel reporting for spring and autumn seasons (rather than summer alone), and providing new abundance estimates for Steller sea lion and northern elephant seal. In addition to providing a baseline of marine mammal abundance and distribution, against which future changes can be compared, this information offers the opportunity to assess the risks posed to marine mammals by existing and emerging threats, such as fisheries bycatch, ship strikes, and increased oil spill and ocean noise issues associated with increases of container ship and oil tanker traffic in British Columbia’s continental shelf waters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œjournal of cetacean research and management. Special issueSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207