MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023071930 · doi:10.1111/mms.12695

Mating patterns of dusky dolphins (<i>Lagenorhynchus obscurus</i>) explored using an unmanned aerial vehicle

2020· article· en· W3023071930 on OpenAlexaff
Dara N. Orbach, Jordan Eaton, Lorenzo Fiori, Sarah Piwetz, Jody Suzanne Weir, Melany Würsig, Bernd Würsig

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Mammal Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMatingBiologyZoologyPopulationEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Few studies have explored the mating patterns of free‐ranging cetaceans, largely because of logistical challenges. We used an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to follow and video‐record 25 groups of mating dusky dolphins ( Lagenorhynchus obscurus ) near the surface of the water and examine how behavior patterns varied with mating group type. We collected aerial footage of dolphins mating in traditional Isolated Pods and within Integrated Pods and compared differences in the number of mating animals, swimming speed, bearing change, percent time at the surface of the water, female respiration rate, copulatory position rate, and sex‐specific mating behaviors. Only the mean number of mating animals and some sex‐specific mating behaviors varied significantly between the two mating group types. More dolphins were engaged in mating behaviors in Isolated Pods than Integrated Pods. Males engaged in more interference behaviors in Isolated Pods compared to Integrated Pods. Females performed fewer speed bursts but more rolls on their backs in Integrated Pods compared to Isolated Pods. Several similarities and differences were found in comparison to boat‐based research of the same population of dolphins. We highlight the value of UAVs for noninvasive and accurate collection of cetacean behavioral data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Mammal ScienceSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207