Should I stay or should I go? Behavioral adjustments of fur seals related to foraging success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding foraging strategies and decision-making processes of predators provide crucial insights into how they might respond to changes in prey availability and in their environment to maximize their net energy input. In this work, foraging strategies of Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella, AFS) and Northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus, NFS) were studied to determine how they adjust their foraging behavior according to their past prey capture experiences. AFS on Kerguelen Islands are exclusively oceanic divers, while NFS population of St Paul Island shows both oceanic and neritic divers. We thus hypothesized that the two species would respond differently to a change in prey capture success depending on their foraging strategy. To test this, 40 females were equipped with tags that measured tri-axial acceleration, dive depth, and GPS coordinates, from which we derived prey capture attempts and behavioral metrics. Influence of prey capture success on horizontal and vertical movements of seals was investigated at different time scales: multi-dive, night, and trip. Both AFS and NFS traveled further during the day if they encountered low prey capture periods during the previous night. However, at the multi-dive scale, neritic NFS differed from oceanic NFS and AFS in terms of decision-making processes, e.g., both AFS and oceanic NFS dived deeper in response to low prey capture rate periods, while neritic NFS did not. Similarities in decision-making processes between NFS and AFS foraging on pelagic prey suggest that pelagic vs. neritic prey type is a key factor in defining foraging decisions of diving marine predators.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 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".