Post release monitoring of rehabilitated gray seal pups over large temporal and spatial scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wildlife rescue and rehabilitation is used globally to aid the conservation and welfare of marine species, however, postrelease monitoring is challenging. Here, long‐term, regional postrelease monitoring provides feedback for rehabilitation centers for gray seals ( Halichoerus grypus ). Data from 1,094 rehabilitated gray seals over 19 years across the southwest UK were examined to assess postrelease survivorship and the impact of release site on movements and range. Using flipper tags combined with photo identification, 391 rehabilitated seals (35.7%) were resighted, including 188 seals (17.2%) that were traced back to a specific rehabilitated individual with release data. The maximum monitoring duration for a single rehabilitated seal was 17 years, although the majority (151/188; 80%) were sighted for less than 5 years and 80/188 (43%) were resighted for less than a year. Almost all 188 traced rehabilitated seals ( n = 176, 93.6%) visited the St Ives Bay Wild Site, yet only half had been released at the adjacent St Ives Bay Release Site. Rehabilitated seals had similar dispersal patterns to their wild conspecifics but over a smaller area. Once released, rehabilitated animals face the same threats as their wild counterparts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".