MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2988780557 · doi:10.1121/1.5137050

How acoustics informs understanding of foraging behavior and effects of vessels and noise on killer whales

2019· article· en· W2988780557 on OpenAlexaff
Marla M. Holt, Jennifer B. Tennessen, Brad Hanson, Candice K. Emmons, Deborah A. Giles, Jeffery Hogan, Brianna Wright, Sheila J. Thornton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingWhaleEndangered speciesPopulationFisheryPredationDiel vertical migrationGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foraging in toothed whales and dolphins is fundamentally tied to the use of sound. Resident-type killer whales (Orcinus orca) use echolocation to locate and capture fast-moving salmon and other fish prey. In addition to prey availability, disturbance from vessels and noise is a threat to the endangered Southern Resident killer whale population given considerable levels of commercial shipping, fishing, whale-watching and recreational vessel traffic in urban waterways that the whales use for feeding. In this study, we utilized suction cup-attached digital acoustic recording tags (DTAGs) to (1) describe whale acoustic and movement behavior during different phases of foraging that can be differentiated from other behaviors, (2) investigate vessel and noise effects on behavior and foraging outcomes in the endangered population, (3) compare foraging behavior between the endangered population that is struggling with population recovery and another population (Northern Resident killer whales) that is increasing in numbers, and (4) characterize diel patterns of foraging and other behaviors to describe their full activity budget and inform management of vessel traffic and noise during urban expansion along the Pacific Northwest coast of North America. This presentation will highlight results to date and implications for the conservation and management of marine protected species.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→