MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3117168986 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244204

Long-term associations among male sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus)

2020· article· en· W3117168986 on OpenAlexaff
Hayao Kobayashi, Hal Whitehead, Masao Amano

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsBiologyDemographySperm whalePelagic zoneEcologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about the social structure of male sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) after they leave their natal units. While previous studies found no evidence for preferred associations among males, the observation of mass-strandings consisting exclusively of males, suggest that they have strong social bonds. To investigate the social associations among male sperm whales, we used half weight index of association, permutation tests and standardized lagged association rate models on a large photo-identification database collected between 2006 and 2017 in Nemuro Strait, Japan. Our results suggest that while male sperm whales are not as social as females, they do form long term associations, have preferred companionship, and forage in social proximity to each other. The best-fitting model to the standardized lagged association rate showed that associations among males last for at least 2.7 years and as most males leave the area after 2 years, associations may last for longer. Twenty dyads were observed associating over more than 2 years, for a maximum 5 years. One dyad was observed associating on 19 different days and clustered on 7 different days. Male associations may function to enhance foraging or to fend off predators. Such relationships seem to be adapted to a pelagic habitat with uncertain resource availability and predation pressure.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→