MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4376128070 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2023-0053

Effects of anthropogenic noise on haul-out numbers of harbor seals (<i>Phoca vitulina)</i>

2023· article· en· W4376128070 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kyra Bankhead, Grace Freeman, Wyatt Heimbichner Goebel, Alejandro Acevedo‐Gutiérrez

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWestern Washington University
KeywordsPhocaHarbor sealNoise (video)Noise pollutionBiologyEnvironmental scienceEcologyNoise reductionAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Haul-out sites of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina Linnaeus, 1758, include areas with high levels of anthropogenic noise. In some cases, seals haul out at night when there are lower in-air noise levels. However, it is unclear whether there are additional responses to noise pollution. To determine potential impacts of anthropogenic noise on haul-out behavior, we compared numbers of hauled-out harbor seals relative to in-air noise levels at two sites in Washington state, USA—one close to human activities (Bellingham waterfront) and one more distant (Semiahmoo marina)—between July 2020 and August 2021. We used generalized linear mixed models to identify predictors of seal numbers. The marina had lower mean noise levels than the waterfront (39.7 ± SD 6.1 dB, n = 29 observations versus 51.2 ± SD 5.2 dB, n = 126 observations). The plotted model prediction showed a significantly negative association between noise and seals at the marina, and no association was found at the waterfront. Results indicate that in-air noise levels may influence seal numbers at sites where human activities are low. They also suggest that, besides hauling out at night, seals may become tolerant to in-air noise levels at sites where human activities are high.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→