MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404577984 · doi:10.1126/science.adp1950

Ship collision risk threatens whales across the world’s oceans

2024· article· en· W4404577984 on OpenAlexaff
Anna C. Nisi, Heather Welch, Stephanie Brodie, Callie Leiphardt, Elliott L. Hazen, Jessica V. Redfern, Trevor A. Branch, André S. Barreto, John Calambokidis, Tyler Clavelle, Lauren E. Dares, Asha de Vos, Shane Gero, Jennifer A. Jackson, Robert D. Kenney, David A. Kroodsma, Russell Leaper, Douglas J. McCauley, Sue E. Moore, Ekaterina Ovsyanikova, Simone Panigada, Chloe V. Robinson, Timothy D. White, Jono R. Wilson, Briana Abrahms

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsWhalingWhaleCollisionFisheryOceanographyGeographyEnvironmental scienceGeologyComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the near-complete cessation of commercial whaling, ship collisions have emerged as a primary threat to large whales, but knowledge of collision risk is lacking across most of the world's oceans. We compiled a dataset of 435,000 whale locations to generate global distribution models for four globally ranging species. We then combined >35 billion positions from 176,000 ships to produce a global estimate of whale-ship collision risk. Shipping occurs across 92% of whale ranges, and <7% of risk hotspots contain management strategies to reduce collisions. Full coverage of hotspots could be achieved by expanding management over only 2.6% of the ocean's surface. These inferences support the continued recovery of large whales against the backdrop of a rapidly growing shipping industry.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations52
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207