MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995182415 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.21799

Hierarchical Classification of Narwhal Subpopulations Using Social Distance

2019· article· en· W2995182415 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bertrand Charry, Marianne Marcoux, Jeffrey A. Cardille, Xavier Giroux‐Bougard, Murray M. Humphries

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyArcticPopulationFisheryEcologyPhysical geographyBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Effective wildlife management and conservation require knowledge of distribution, sex composition, and age structure of a population. We explored the distribution of the Baffin Bay narwhal (Monodon monoceros) population in August 2013 by documenting sex and age distribution across the Canadian Arctic Archipelago covering 2,317,152 km2. For 6,314 narwhals identified in 3,393 aerial images taken across the Eastern Canadian Arctic, we calculated a matrix of swimming distances between all individuals. We then used a quantitative clustering approach to partition our dataset (partitioning around the medoids). The clusters obtained from the analysis supported the delimitation of the 5 narwhal management stocks currently used by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans but did not support the hypothesized division of Jones Sound and Smith Sound stocks. Across the 5 clusters, male:female ratios varied between 0.72 and 1.44 and the proportion of newborns relative to the number of females varied between 0.07 and 0.18. As a highly detailed snapshot of narwhal distribution across a very large region, our study is a step toward better documentation of the basic population information required for stock assessment, sustainable harvest, and habitat protection of narwhals in an era of rapid Arctic change. © 2019 The Wildlife Society.

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)0.002
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 score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207