Fly with care: belugas show evasive responses to low altitude drone flights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Drones have become an important research tool for studies of cetaceans, providing valuable insights into their ecology and behavior. However, drones are also recognized as a potential source of disturbance to cetaceans, particularly when flown at low altitudes. In this study, we examined the impact of drones on endangered St. Lawrence belugas ( Delphinapterus leucas ), and reviewed drone studies of cetaceans to identify altitude thresholds linked to disturbance. We repurposed drone footage of free‐living belugas taken at various altitudes, speeds, and angles‐of‐approach, and noted the animals' reactions. Evasive reactions to the drone occurred during 4.3% (22/511) of focal group follows. Belugas were more likely to display sudden dives during low‐altitude flights, particularly flights below 23 m. Sudden dives were also more likely to occur in larger groups and were especially common when a drone first approached a group. We recommend that researchers maintain a lower altitude limit of 25 m in drone‐assisted studies of belugas and approach larger groups with caution. This recommendation is in line with our literature review, which indicates that drone flights above 30 m are unlikely to provoke disturbance among cetaceans.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".