MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165156391 · doi:10.1111/mms.12836

Behavioral context of echolocation and prey‐handling sounds produced by killer whales (<i>Orcinus orca</i>) during pursuit and capture of Pacific salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus</i> spp.)

2021· article· en· W3165156391 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brianna Wright, Volker B. Deecke, Graeme M. Ellis, Andrew W. Trites, John K. B. Ford

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Mammal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Cumbria
KeywordsHuman echolocationPredationForagingWhaleBiologyFisheryContext (archaeology)Forage fishPrey detectionOncorhynchusFish <Actinopterygii>Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

) in the northeastern Pacific. Although piscivorous killer whales rely on echolocation to locate and track prey, the relationship between echolocation, movement, and prey capture during foraging by wild individuals is poorly understood. We used acoustic biologging tags to relate echolocation behavior to prey pursuit and capture during successful feeding dives by fish-eating killer whales in coastal British Columbia, Canada. The significantly higher incidence and rate of echolocation prior to fish captures compared to afterward confirms its importance in prey detection and tracking. Extremely rapid click sequences (buzzes) were produced before or concurrent with captures of salmon at depths typically exceeding 50 m, and were likely used by killer whales for close-range prey targeting, as in other odontocetes. Distinctive crunching and tearing sounds indicative of prey-handling behavior occurred at relatively shallow depths following fish captures, matching concurrent observations that whales surfaced with fish prior to consumption and often shared prey. Buzzes and prey-handling sounds are potentially useful acoustic signals for estimating foraging efficiency and determining if resident killer whales are meeting their energetic requirements.

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)0.001
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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Mammal ScienceSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207