Conspecific scarring on wild belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) in Cunningham Inlet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".