Rates of increase in gray seal (Halichoerus grypus atlantica) pupping at recolonized sites in the United States, 1988–2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gray seals were historically distributed along the northeastern coast of the United States, but bounties and lack of protection reduced numbers and they were rarely observed for most of the 20th century. Once protections were enacted, the population started to rebound. Here, we describe the recolonization and recovery of gray seals in the United States, focusing on the re-establishment of pupping sites. We fit individual generalized linear models to various time series (1988–2019) to estimate rates of increase in observed pup counts at four of the more data-rich sites. Annual rate of increase at individual sites ranged from −0.2% (95% CI: −2.3–1.9%) to 26.3% (95% CI: 21.6–31.4%). The increase in sites and number of pups born in the United States is driven by population growth and immigration from Canadian colonies and is part of a larger recovery of the Northwest Atlantic population. Wildlife protection, a healthy source population, habitat availability, and species traits that allow for dispersal and high productivity were all important factors in this recovery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".