Morphological differences in skulls and feeding apparatuses between Antarctic (<i>Balaenoptera bonaerensis</i>) and common (<i>Balaenoptera acutorostrata</i>) minke whales, and the implication for their feeding ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The differences in rorqual feeding ecology have been linked to the presence of different morphological markers. The Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis Burmeister, 1867) and the common minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata Lacépède, 1804) are closely related species, but their morphological differences have not been fully investigated. In this study, we compared 21 skull and 11 feeding apparatus (baleen and mouth-related parts) measurement points between these two species using hundreds of individuals covering a wide range of body lengths in both sexes. Their engulfment capacities were estimated using these measurements. Our results show that Antarctic minke whales have (i) proportionally larger skulls to the body length, (ii) more dorsoventrally and laterally curved rostra, (iii) proportionally larger feeding apparatuses to the condylobasal length, and (iv) significantly larger engulfment capacity than common minke whales. These differences could indicate that Antarctic minke whales have developed a feeding strategy suitable for feeding on krill, which forms large schools. In contrast, common minke whales have adapted to prey on small pelagic fishes that are agile and form small schools.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".