Acoustic occurrence of pinnipeds offshore eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is limited information on the distribution of pinnipeds beyond known haul-out or whelping sites, particularly in offshore areas. In the waters off Atlantic Canada, this knowledge gap limits our ability to understand baseline habitat use and assess distribution changes through time. We used a large passive acoustic monitoring dataset to determine the acoustic presence of pinnipeds from Labrador to Nova Scotia. Acoustic data were collected from bottom-mounted recorders from 2015 to 2017 at 20 stations, with several in deep offshore waters. An initial application of automated marine mammal detectors and manual validation highlighted 12 stations with seasonal pinniped presence. Additional manual review was completed on these 12 stations to describe the occurrence of pinniped signals. Five pinniped species (hooded seal Cystophora cristata Erxleben, 1777, bearded seal Erignathus barbatus barbatus Erxleben, 1777, grey seal Halichoerus grypus Nehring, 1866, harp seal Pagophilus groenlandicus Erxleben, 1777, and walrus Odobenus rosmarus Linnaeus, 1758) were detected in the data. Pinnipeds were acoustically present primarily in winter and spring, periods when pinnipeds are most vocally active and when sea ice is available as a pupping substrate off Atlantic Canada. These findings highlight offshore regions where species have previously gone unreported and can be used in future work to assess changes in distribution as climate shifts impact sea ice cover.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".