MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393025334 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297768

Aquaculture related humpback whale entanglements in coastal waters of British Columbia from 2008–2021

2024· article· en· W4393025334 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rhea L. Storlund, Paul Cottrell, Brendan Cottrell, Myron Roth, Taylor Lehnhart, Heindrich N. Snyman, Andrew W. Trites, Stephen Raverty

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsMinistry of HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of GuelphMinistry of AgricultureFisheries and Oceans CanadaMcGill University
FundersMitacs
KeywordsHumpback whaleFisheryAquacultureWhaleGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past two decades, increasing numbers of humpback whales have been returning to feed in the inshore waters of British Columbia (BC) where marine aquaculture farms are situated. This has led to growing concerns that the presence of aquaculture farms may pose an entanglement threat to humpback whales. However, it is not known whether aquaculture facilities attract humpback whales, or whether there are factors that increase the likelihood of humpback whale, becoming entangled and dying. We examined eight reports of humpback whales interacting with Atlantic salmon farms in BC from 2008 to 2021 to evaluate the conditions that may have contributed to their entanglements. Of the eight entangled humpbacks, three individuals died and five were successfully disentangled and released. All were young animals (1 calf, 7 subadults). Multiple factors were associated with two or more of the reported incidents. These included facility design, environmental features, seasonality, humpback whale age, and feeding behaviour. We found that humpback whales were most commonly entrapped in the predator nets of the aquaculture facilities (6/8 incidents), and were less often entangled in anchor support lines (2/8). The presence of salmon smolts did not appear to be an attractant for humpback whales given that half of the reported entanglements (4/8) occurred at fallowed salmon farms. Almost all of the entanglements (7/8) occurred in late winter (prior to the seasonal return of humpbacks) and during late fall (after most humpbacks have migrated south). Overall, the number of humpback whales impacted by fish farms was small compared to the numbers that return to BC (> 7,000) and accounted for <6% of all types of reported entanglements in BC. Human intervention was required to release humpback whales at fish farms, which points to the need to have well-established protocols to minimize entanglements and maximize successful releases.

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)0.001
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 score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→