MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377985725 · doi:10.47536/jcrm.v3i3.878

Vocalisation rates of the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis)

2023· article· en· W4377985725 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jermey N. A. Matthews, Stephen Brown, Douglas Gillespie, Mary A. Johnson, Richard McLanaghan, Anna Moscrop, Doug Nowacek, Russell Leaper, T. Lewis, Peter L. Tyack

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œjournal of cetacean research and management. Special issue · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchWoods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionInternational Fund for Animal Welfare
KeywordsRight whaleBayHydrophoneWhaleFisheryOceanographyGeographySound (geography)Environmental scienceBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vocalisation rates were measured from North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in spring 1999-2000 in the Great South Channel and off Cape Cod, USA, and in summer 1999-2000 in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Vocalisations were classed as either ‘moans’, ‘low-frequency (LF) calls’ or ‘gunshots’. Towed hydrophone recordings (36.1 hours) were made in 21 encounters where loose aggregations of right whales were within about 1,000m. Recordings were also made using acoustic tags attached by suction cups to ten different whales (29.5 hours). Tags also recorded depth data. Moan rates (sounds per aggregation per hour) were correlated with size of whale aggregation. Individual whales produced moans at ~ 0-10 per hour (recorded from tags and the towed hydrophone). Small aggregations (2-10) gave higher moan rates (usually < ~ 60 per hr) and larger aggregations ( > 10) higher still ( ~ 70-700 per hr) (recorded from towed hydrophone). Results from the Bay of Fundy indicate high moan rates at night. Moans were usually produced in clusters. Tag data showed that moans were usually produced when whales were within about 10m of the surface. A passive acoustic system could potentially provide supplementary information on the distribution of aggregations of right whales. This could be useful for management (1) in the long term, by aiding the prediction of right whale distribution, or (2) as a real-time tool for helping to route shipping away from concentrations of right whales. The empirical evidence presented here on vocalisation rates will assist in assessing feasibility. The clustering of moans and the tendency to produce them near the surface could hamper detection and localisation efforts. Further research is underway to investigate other important practical issues such as detectability and source levels.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations49
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œjournal of cetacean research and management. Special issueSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207