Antecedent description and depiction of the recently described cetacean behaviour of trap/tread-water feeding inferred from a nineteenth-century sighting of a ‘sea monster’ in the Gulf of Suez, Egypt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2017 and 2018, two groups of biologists published papers in which they independently described what was referred to as a ‘novel’ or ‘new’ feeding behaviour for cetaceans. Called ‘trap’ or ‘tread-water’ feeding, the behaviour was of interest as it was the first time that passive or stationary in contrast to lunge, and vertical as opposed to horizontal position, feeding had been observed by whales. A subsequent historical ecology paper suggested that the recently described behaviour had in fact been previously observed and documented by illustrators and writers in Classical Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Because yesterday’s ‘sea monsters’ are today’s megafauna, recounted sightings of the former can provide early insight into whale behaviour. One such example is an 19th century sighting of a ‘sea monster’ in the Gulf of Suez, whose description and illustration are nearly identical to modern scientific reporting of whales engaged in trap/tread-water feeding. Such concordance is further evidence in support of a historical precedence with respect to observing and documenting this behaviour.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".