Psychotic, Depressed, or Just a Whale? Studying Whales in Captivity at Marineland of the Pacific, 1954-1967
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to the onset of large-scale marine mammal captivity, marine biologists had limited access to whales and dolphins. Scientists were often forced to rely on inadequate wild observations, study whale carcasses from whaling ships or factories, collect stranded specimens, or hunt their own cetaceans. Opening in 1954, Marineland of the Pacific revolutionized the marine mammalogy field by providing unprecedented opportunities for scientists to closely observe, study, and interact with live whales. In addition to studying breathing rates, swimming speeds, and diving capabilities, scientists at Marineland also made advances in understanding echolocation, social structure, and emotional intelligence in cetaceans. Through examinations of scientific studies, changes in animal husbandry practices, and popular publications, this paper will show that the connection between oceanariums and marine research has been largely overlooked in historical scholarship, but is critical to understanding the transformation in the mid-twentieth century relationship between humans and cetaceans.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".