Growth and development of North Pacific gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding variability in growth patterns of marine mammals provides insights into the health of individuals and status of populations. Body growth of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) has been described for particular life stages, but has not been quantified across all ages. We derived a comprehensive growth equation for gray whales by fitting a two-phased growth model to age-specific length data of eastern North Pacific gray whales that were captured, stranded, or harvested between 1926 and 1997. To predict mass-at-age, we used the allometric relationship between mass and length. We found that on average (± SD), calves were 4.6 ± 0.043 m and 972 ± 26 kg at birth, and reached 8.5 ± 0.095 m and 6,019 ± 196 kg by the end of their first year of life (n = 118). Thus, calves almost double (2×) in length and octuple (8×) in mass while nursing, and are effectively about two-thirds of their asymptotic adult length and one-third of their maximum mass when weaned. The large sample of aged individuals (n = 730) indicates that gray whales live up to ~48 years and have a life expectancy of < 30 years. Adult females attain a mean (± SD) asymptotic size of 13.1 ± 0.048 m and 20,758 ± 222 kg, while the smaller males average 12.6 ± 0.048 m and 19,938 ± 222 kg at ~40 years of age. Females are thereby ~4% longer and heavier than males. These age-specific estimates of body size can be used to estimate food requirements and assess nutritional status of individuals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".