First Evidence of Individual Sharks Involved in Multiple Predatory Bites on People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT It is widely accepted that populations of terrestrial predators sometimes contain “problem individuals” that repeatedly attack humans, yet this phenomenon has never been demonstrated in sharks. Here, we present photographic and genetic evidence of individuals in populations of tiger Galeocerdo cuvier and oceanic whitetip Carcharhinus longimanus sharks that (1) demonstrated atypical behavior compared to the rest of the population, (2) engaged in repeated agonistic behavior directed toward humans, and (3) bit, or attempted to bite humans in probable foraging attempts. These case studies provide some of the first evidence for the existence of “problem individuals” among sharks. The percentage of fatalities due to the same shark individual are not known, so we recommend systematic swabbing of shark bite victims wounds to better understand the importance of this phenomenon and the possibility of identifying these animals. Environmentally conscientious management options for problem individuals range from prohibiting ocean activities (e.g., swimming and surfing) in their habitats to selectively removing the individual, although the latter would be challenging in the marine environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".