MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093928510 · doi:10.47536/jcrm.vi.283

Migration and foraging strategies at varying spatial scales in western North Atlantic right whales: a review of hypotheses

2020· review· en· W3093928510 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert D. Kenney, Charles A. Mayo, Howard E. Winn

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œjournal of cetacean research and management. Special issue · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingRight whalePredationHabitatEcologyDiel vertical migrationWhaleHuman echolocationFisheryZooplanktonGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Western North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) utilise several important foraging habitats off the northeastern United States andeastern Canada, where they feed on dense patches of zooplankton. At a fundamental level, a right whale’s optimal strategy should be tolocate and exploit the prey patches with the highest net energetic return from foraging. There remain many questions, however, concerningtheir migration and foraging strategies and the environmental cues and sensory modalities involved in migration and foraging, all of whichare likely to vary at different spatial scales. For example, a right whale most likely uses different mechanisms and strategies for locationof primary feeding grounds than those used for detection of optimum prey patches within a feeding area. This paper proposes a multi-scaled,hierarchical, conceptual model of right whale migratory and foraging strategies and presents a variety of hypotheses concerning themechanisms involved. Right whales may return to the general area of their feeding grounds based on prior experience. The locations ofsuccessful foraging in the immediately preceding years are likely to be re-visited, as are habitats to which an animal was exposed whileaccompanying its mother during its first year of life. It is also possible that the whales utilise large- or medium-scale environmental cues,such as currents, temperature discontinuities, or salinity signals indicating coastal plumes, to locate likely areas of high zooplankton patchdensity. Whilst on their feeding grounds, right whales tend to be aggregated, but there are usually outliers which may represent occasionalexcursions in search of other prey patches, though there is currently no evidence to address whether they communicate information aboutprey to other individuals. Their behaviour whilst actively feeding indicates that they can detect differences in patch density and adjust theirbehaviour accordingly. A likely sensory mechanism for quantification of patch density and triggering of feeding behaviour would be thevibrissae around the anterior opening of the mouth.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.267 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations70
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œjournal of cetacean research and management. Special issueSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207