Quantifying uncertainty in anthropogenic causes of injury and mortality for an endangered baleen whale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding the causes of mortality for a declining species is essential for developing effective conservation and management strategies, particularly when anthropogenic activities are the primary threat. Using a competing hazards framework allows for robust estimation of the cause‐specific variation in risk that may exist across multiple dimensions, such as time and individual. Here, we estimated cause‐specific rates of severe injury and mortality for North Atlantic right whales ( Eubalaena glacialis ), a critically endangered species that is currently in peril due to human‐caused interactions. We developed a multistate capture–recapture model that leveraged 30 years of intensive survey effort yielding sightings of individuals with injury assessments and necropsies of carcass recoveries. We examined variation in the hazard rates of severe injury and mortality due to entanglements in fishing gear and vessel strikes as explained by temporal patterns and the age and reproductive status of the individual. We found strong evidence for increased rates of severe entanglement injuries after 2013 and for females with calves, with consequently higher marginal mortality. The model results also suggested that despite vessel strikes causing a lower average rate of severe injuries, the higher mortality rate conditional on injury results in significant total mortality risk, particularly for females resting from a recent calving event. Large uncertainty in the estimation of carcass recovery rate for vessel strike deaths permeated into the apportionment of mortality causes. The increased rates of North Atlantic right whale mortality in the last decade, particularly for reproducing females, has been responsible for the severe decline in the species. By apportioning the human‐caused threats using a quantitative approach with estimation of relevant uncertainty, this work can guide development of conservation and management strategies to facilitate species recovery. Our approach is relevant to other monitored populations where cause‐specific injuries from multiple threats can be observed in live and dead individuals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".