Body Condition and Allometry of Free-Ranging Short-Finned Pilot Whales in the North Atlantic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand the effects of anthropogenic disturbance on the nutritional health of animals, it is important to measure and understand the morphometrics, allometrics, and body condition of the species. We examined the body shape, allometric relationships, and body condition of short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) in three locations across the North Atlantic. Using unmanned aerial vehicles, the body length (BL) and width (along the body axis) were measured from photographs of the dorsal side, while body height (dorso-ventral distance) was measured on the lateral side. Seventy-seven pilot whales were measured (mean ± SD), including 9 calves (BL 2.37 m ± 0.118), 31 juveniles (2.90 m ± 0.183), and 37 adults (3.72 m ± 0.440). The body shape was similar among reproductive classes, with the widest point being anterior of the dorsal fin (at 30–35% BL from the rostrum). The cross-sectional body shape of the whales was flattened in the lateral plane, which increased towards the peduncle and fluke. The rostrum-blowhole distance and fluke width increased linearly with BL. The estimated volumes of pilot whales ranged between 0.15 and 0.32 m3 for calves, 0.25 and 0.64 m3 for juveniles, and 0.46 and 1.13 m3 for adults. The body condition (residual of log-volume vs. log-length) ranged from −34.8 to +52.4%. There was no difference in body condition among reproductive classes or locations.
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) | 0.001 | 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".