MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283376831 · doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.863070

Risk Assessment of Whale Entanglement and Vessel Strike Injuries From Case Narratives and Classification Trees

2022· article· en· W4283376831 on OpenAlexfundno aff
James V. Carretta, Allison G. Henry

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Marine Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. NavySouthwest Fisheries Science CenterFisheries and Oceans CanadaCanadian Wildlife Health CooperativeOregon State University
KeywordsRight whaleWhaleHumpback whaleDemographyMedicineFisheryGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Entanglements and vessel strikes impact large whales worldwide. Post-event health status is often unknown because whales are seen once or over short spans that conceal long-term health declines. Well-studied populations with high site fidelity verified by photo-ID offer opportunity to confirm deaths, health declines and recoveries. We used known outcome entanglements and vessel strikes of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to model probabilities of deaths, health declines and recoveries with Random Forest (RF) classification trees. Variables included presence or absence of phrases from case narratives (‘deep laceration’, ‘cyamid’, ‘healing’, ‘superficial’) and a categorical variable for vessel size. Health status post-entanglement was correctly classified in 95.7% of right whale and 93.6% of humpback whale cases (expected by chance=50%). Health status post-vessel strike was correctly classified in 91.4% of right whale and 88.6% of humpback whale cases. Important variables included cyamid presence, emaciation, discolored skin, constricting entanglements, gear-free resightings, superficial or healing lacerations, and vessel size. Cross-validated RF models were applied to unknown outcome cases to estimate the probability of deaths, health declines and recoveries. Total serious injuries (probability of death or health decline > 0.50) assigned by RF were nearly equal to current injury assessment methods applied by biologists for known outcomes. However, RF consistently predicted higher serious injury totals for unknown outcomes, suggesting that current assessment methods may underestimate risk for cases lacking details or long-term observations. Advantages of the RF method include: 1) risk models are based on known outcomes; 2) unknown outcomes are assigned post-event health status probabilities; and 3) identification of important predictor variables improves data collection standards.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Marine ScienceSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207