MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154275571 · doi:10.1163/1568539x-bja10086

Conspecific scarring on wild belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) in Cunningham Inlet

2021· article· en· W3154275571 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehaviour · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeluga WhaleBelugaLeucasBottlenose dolphinPopulationAggressionZoologyBiologyGeographyFisheryDemographyEcologyPsychologyArcticDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Intra-specific aggression is not frequently observed in wild cetaceans, including belugas. One proxy, identified in past research, that indicates past aggressive behaviour is the presence of rake marks (scars left on skin by the teeth of conspecifics). Behavioural observations of belugas, compared to bottlenose dolphins, suggest that belugas engage in less physically aggressive behaviour; yet, a detailed study of beluga aggressive behaviour remains to be conducted. Beluga intra-specific aggression was assessed by scoring photographs taken from July to August in 2015 at Cunningham Inlet, Canada for the presence/absence and body location of rake marks. Of the 252 belugas analysed, 44% had rake marks. The results suggest that physical aggression occurs comparatively less with only half of the observed beluga population having rake marks compared to almost all bottlenose dolphins previously surveyed. We suggest social structure, skin pigmentation, and/or species-specific behaviours as explanations for the differences in rake marks among species.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.231 · 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