High collocation of sand lance and protected top predators: Implications for conservation and management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spatial relationships between predators and prey provide critical information for understanding and predicting climate‐induced shifts in ecosystem dynamics and mitigating human impacts. We used Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary as a case study to investigate spatial overlap among sand lance ( Ammodytes dubius ), a key forage fish species, and two protected predators: humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ) and great shearwaters ( Ardenna gravis ). We conducted 6 years (2013–2018) of standardized surveys and quantified spatial overlap using the global index of collocation. Results showed strong, consistent collocation among species across seasons and years, suggesting that humpback whales and great shearwater distributions are tightly linked to sand lance. We propose that identifying sand lance habitats may indicate areas where humpbacks and shearwaters aggregate and are particularly vulnerable to human activities. Understanding how sand lance influence predator distributions can inform species protection and sanctuary management under present and future scenarios.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it