MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117100379 · doi:10.14430/arctic71435

Reproductive Parameters for Female Beluga Whales (<i>Delphinapterus leucas</i>) of Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay, Canada

2020· article· en· W3117100379 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Steven H. Ferguson, Cornelia Willing, Trish C. Kelley, David A. Boguski, David J. Yurkowski, Cortney A. Watt

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNunavut Wildlife Management BoardIndigenous and Northern Affairs CanadaFisheries and Oceans CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaGovernment of Nunavut
KeywordsBeluga WhaleLeucasBayBelugaArcticPopulationGeographyCetaceaBiologyMarine mammalSexual maturityFisheryZoologyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring marine mammal populations and their habitats is crucial for assessing population status and defining realistic management and conservation goals. Environmental and anthropogenic changes in the Arctic have prompted the pursuit for improved understanding of female beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) spatial and temporal reproductive patterns. There are relatively few estimates for female reproductive parameters of beluga whale populations across the Arctic, and those few that are available are outdated. Here we summarize female reproductive data from samples collected through Inuit subsistence hunts of three eastern Canadian Arctic beluga populations: High Arctic/Baffin Bay (HA), Western Hudson Bay (HB), and Cumberland Sound (CS) from 1989 to 2014. We grouped the CS and HA populations into a Baffin Bay region (BB) population based on similar body growth patterns and genetic similarity. Asymptotic body length of BB beluga whales (370.9 cm) was greater than HB whales (354.4 cm) as established from Gompertz growth curves fitted for whales ranging in age from 1 – 89 y. We did not detect a significant difference in average number of pseudocervices (8.6) between regions. Differences in average age of sexual maturity (ASM) and length at sexual maturity (LSM) were identified, with evidence of BB females maturing earlier than females from HB (probability method BB = 9.9 y versus HB = 11.0 and logistic method ASM50% HB = 9.99 and BB unresolved). BB females were also longer than HB females at maturing age (logistic LSM50%: BB = 314.5 cm vs HB = 290.3). Total corpora counts were strongly correlated with age, although the number of corpora (≥ 10 mm) suggests reproductive senescence between 40 and 50 y. Improved understanding of female reproductive patterns and knowledge of changes in the spatial and temporal timing of reproductive processes are fundamental for effective conservation and sustainable management of beluga whale populations.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207