Group hunting in harbour porpoises (<i>Phocoena phocoena</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperative hunting involves individual predators relating in time and space to each other’s actions to more efficiently track down and catch prey. The evolution of advanced cognitive abilities and sociality in animals are strongly associated with cooperative hunting abilities as has been shown in lions, chimpanzees, and dolphins. Much less is known about cooperative hunting in seemingly unsocial animals, such as the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena (Linnaeus, 1758)). Using drones, we were able to record 159 hunting sequences of porpoises, out of which 95 sequences involved more than one porpoise. To better understand if the harbour porpoises were individually attracted by the fish school or formed an organized hunting strategy, the behaviour of each individual porpoise in relation to the targeted fish school was analysed. The results indicate role specialization, which is considered the most sophisticated form of collaborative hunting and only rarely seen in animals. Our study challenges previous knowledge about harbour porpoises and opens up for the possibility of other seemingly non-social species employing sophisticated collaborative hunting methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".