Physical Health and Welfare States of Fin (Balaenoptera physalus) and Humpback Whales (Megaptera novangliae) in an Anthropized Environment: Validation of a First Animal-Based Welfare Assessment Protocol for Wild Cetaceans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropogenic activities impacting marine environments are internationally recognized as welfare issues for wild cetaceans. This study validates a first evidence-based physical health and welfare assessment protocol for humpback (n=50) and fin whales (n=50) living in a highly anthropized environment. Visual assessments of body condition, skin health, prevalence of injuries and parasite/epibiont loads were performed using a species-specific multi-scale measuring tool. A total of 6403 images were analyzed (fin, n =3152; humpback, n= 3251) and results were validated through reliability and positive discrimination statistical tests. Welfare assessment results showed that 60% of humpback whales were considered in a good physical welfare state compared to only 46% of fin whales. Significant relationships were observed in both species, between environmental parameters, like dissolved oxygen levels, and prevalence of cutaneous lesions like pale skin patch syndrome. Furthermore, animals with injuries due to anthropogenic activities were more likely to be in poorer body condition, suggesting chronic stress affecting health and welfare.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".