MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220759436 · doi:10.1578/am.48.2.2022.142

Fin, Humpback, and Minke Whale Foraging Events in the New York Bight as Observed from Aerial Surveys, 2017-2020

2022· article· en· W4220759436 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kate Lomac-MacNair, Ann M. Zoidis, Darren S. Ireland, Meghan E. Rickard, Kim A. McKown

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Mammals · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinke whaleBalaenopteraHumpback whaleFisheryForagingWhaleWhalingGeographyOceanographyCapelinAerial surveyCetaceaFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyEcologyGeologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) are known to occur in the New York Bight (NYB). The primary North Atlantic feeding grounds for these large whale species are commonly recognized to be further north in waters of the Gulf of Maine, eastern Canada, West Greenland, and the eastern North Atlantic (e.g., Iceland, Norway, Ireland, Scotland). Although much is known about their feeding activities in the North Atlantic, relatively little is known about their occurrence and foraging behaviors in mid-Atlantic regions such as the NYB. Understanding how large whales utilize NYB waters is important to evaluate potential impacts from direct (e.g., offshore development, vessel strikes, entanglements) and indirect (e.g., rising ocean temperatures) anthropogenic sources. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation funded a 3-year baseline monitoring program (2017-2020) which conducted monthly line-transect aerial surveys focused on large whales. Over 3 years, 36 surveys comprised of 263 flights and totaling 688.3 hours of observation time along 140,370 km of over-water flight path were completed. Aerial survey observers documented foraging events for the fin, humpback, and minke whales, including mixed-species aggregations, and analyzed other parameters such as distance from shore, distribution zones, and presence of fish schools. Foraging behavior was observed for 27% of the recorded fin whale sightings, 40% of the recorded humpback whale sightings, and 18% of the recorded minke whale sightings. Sighting rates of foraging whales were highest for humpback whales (4.4 whales/1,000 km of effort), followed by fin whales (0.6 whales/1,000 km effort) and minke whales (0.1 whales/1,000 km of effort), and varied by season, year, and distribution zone. In addition, nearly 5,700 fish schools were recorded with fish presence highest during summer and fall.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic MammalsSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207