North Atlantic killer whale<i>Orcinus orca</i>populations: a review of current knowledge and threats to conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The first comprehensive review on North Atlantic killer whales Orcinus orca was published in 1988. Since then, a significant increase in published studies has substantially improved our understanding of occurrence patterns, major food sources, abundance and population structuring in the North‐east Atlantic. Dedicated studies on killer whales in the Mid‐ and West Atlantic were undertaken beginning in 2006, mainly following an increase in their presence due to rapidly changing environmental conditions in the Arctic regions of Canada and Greenland. Compiling 111 scientific articles and reports published from 1957 to date, this review assesses the current state of knowledge of North Atlantic killer whale populations. We reviewed distribution, abundance, movements, genetic structure, acoustics, population parameters, and threats, whilst highlighting the connection among regions from east to west. Our results indicated that, while North Atlantic killer whales should be recovering following the end of the harvest, culling and live captures in the 1980s, new emerging threats including chemical pollution, anthropogenic noise and increasing unregulated subsistence harvest in Greenland could be hampering this rebound. There is an urgent need to collect data on the abundance and population structure of killer whales in Greenland and Eastern Canada. A lack of information across most regions of the North Atlantic Ocean has prevented regional status assessments from being conducted. Ongoing and future studies should be aimed at collecting relevant data to undertake these assessments, particularly genetic samples and photo‐identification.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".