Interyear re-identifications of bowhead whales during their spring migration past Point Barrow, Alaska, 1984-1994
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a part of a review of bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) stocks, a study was conducted to evaluate how much mixing occurs in the whales’spring migration, a period which immediately follows the mating season. This study has used aerial photography of bowhead whales during their spring migration near Point Barrow, which has resulted in 5,800 images, primarily from 1984 through 1994. These photographs included 40 different whales seen in at least two years, and of these, two were seen in three different years, making for a pair-wise sample size of 42 matches between years. Differences between dates of initial sightings and subsequent sightings (i.e. resightings) ranged from -31 to +23 days comparing month and day only, irrespective of year. These resightings were well dispersed across most of the bowhead spring migration; 98% of the photographs were taken across 45 days from 19 April through 2 June. Models for predicting resighting date from initial sighting date, whale length, presence of a calf, year of initial sighting and year of subsequent sightings were considered, and the best model was chosen using Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC). The best model included most predictors but did not include initial sighting date. Thus, all of the available evidence indicates that individual mature bowheads do not have a consistent migration timing past Barrow; instead, in subsequent years they may appear on almost any date within the normal migratory period. This wide mixing and near-random distribution of resighting dates throughout the spring migration is indicative of a single stock of whales that have a somewhat plastic schedule.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".