MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094132780 · doi:10.47536/jcrm.vi.284

Sighting heterogeneity of right whales in the western North Atlantic: 1980-1992

2020· article· en· W3094132780 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Moira W. Brown, Solange Brault, Philip K. Hamilton, Robert D. Kenney, Amy R. Knowlton, Marilyn K. Marx, Charles A. Mayo, Christopher K. Slay, Scott D. Kraus

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œjournal of cetacean research and management. Special issue · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsJuvenilePopulationHabitatBiologyDemographyGeographyEcologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The population of western North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) is distributed primarily between Florida, USA and NovaScotia, Canada, aggregating seasonally in five geographically distinct, high-use areas. To test the effectiveness of monitoring alldemographic classes (juvenile and adult males and females) of the population in these five habitat areas, an evaluation was carried out ofthe identification records of catalogued right whales collected between 1980 and 1992, for which the age, sex and reproductive status (foradult females) were known. The mean annual identification frequency of adult females was significantly lower than that of adult males,juvenile females and juvenile males. Among adult females, reproductively active females were seen significantly more often than expectedwhen lactating (with a calf) than during their pregnancy or resting years. These data suggest that, while research efforts in the five high-usehabitat areas have had relatively equal success at monitoring juvenile males and females and adult males, many adult females are segregatedat times from the rest of the population. Lower variability in annual identification frequencies of adult females indicates that they may bemore site specific in their distribution than males, particularly during the years when they are pregnant or resting from a previous pregnancy.Re-running these analyses using sighting records updated through 2000 will help determine if the trends continue to be documentedregardless of changes in survey effort and patterns of habitat use of some animals.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œjournal of cetacean research and management. Special issueSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207