MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101874215 · doi:10.1002/aqc.3496

Historical and contemporary habitat use of sperm whales around the Galápagos Archipelago: Implications for conservation

2020· article· en· W3101874215 on OpenAlexafffund
Ana Eguiguren, Enrico Pirotta, Kristina Boerder, Maurício Cantor, Godfrey Merlen, Hal Whitehead

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersKillam TrustsCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorNational Geographic SocietyConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCetacean Society International
KeywordsWhalingSperm whaleArchipelagoHabitatFisheryGeographyWhaleFishingPopulationOceanographyEcologyBiologyGeologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sperm whales have occupied the waters off the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador, for at least the past 200 years. During the 19th century, they were the target of intensive whaling that severely depleted the population. In recent times, after commercial whaling ended, sperm whales in the region remain vulnerable to multiple threats, especially potential entanglement in fishing gear, which may hinder their ability to recover from the whaling era. As a highly mobile, long‐lived species, long‐term analysis of the habitat use of sperm whales is necessary to establish effective conservation and management strategies. Here, contemporary (1985–2014) and historical (1830–1850) sperm whale habitat use off the Galápagos Islands was analysed and contrasted to the extent of the Galápagos Marine Reserve (GMR). Contemporary habitat use and its variability over time were modelled as a function of geographic, oceanographic, and topographic variables using generalized additive models. The fine‐scale habitat (<50 km) used by sperm whales was associated with topographic (i.e. depth and slope) and oceanographic characteristics (i.e. relative sea surface temperature and standard deviation of sea surface temperature), but these preferences varied over time. While historical and contemporary data indicate that sperm whale habitat primarily occurred within the boundaries of the GMR, in recent years, whales were found up to 30.1% of the time outside the GMR, potentially overlapping with commercial fisheries operating in the area. The dynamic nature of the relationship of this nomadic species with its habitat highlights the need of large‐scale conservation efforts across the Eastern Tropical Pacific region, including the wide‐scale enforcement of regulations requiring the use of Automatic Identification System in fishing vessels, the promotion of on‐board fisheries observer programmes, the development of adaptive management strategies, and international collaboration to identify and mitigate threats.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207