MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W51430859 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v120i1.252

Temporal Variability of Cetaceans near Halifax, Nova Scotia

2006· article· en· W51430859 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Peter Simard, Jennifer L. Lawlor, Shannon Gowans

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Wildlife Federation
KeywordsMinke whaleBalaenopteraFisheryPhocoenaNova scotiaCetaceaBiologyBayHumpback whaleWhalingGeographyPorpoiseOceanographyWhaleHarbourGeologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Annual and seasonal trends in sightings of coastal cetaceans near Halifax, Nova Scotia, were studied using observations from whale watching and dedicated research vessels from late spring to early fall of 1996 to 2005. Four species of cetaceans routinely used the area during the summer: White-beaked and Atlantic White-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris and L. acutus), Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena), and Minke Whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). The dolphin species were temporally separated, with White-beaked Dolphins being common earlier in the summer than White-sided Dolphins. White-sided Dolphins were unusually abundant in 1997, and were found in larger groups (mean = 46.5 ± 46.19 sd) than Whitebeaked Dolphins (mean = 9.1 ± 5.19 SD). The area also appears to be an important habitat for dolphin calves and juveniles of both species. Fin Whales (B. physalus) were commonly observed in relatively large groups in 1997, but were uncommon or absent in other years. Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), Blue Whales (B. musculus) and North Atlantic Right Whales (Eubalaena glacialis) were uncommon in the area, although Humpback Whales were sighted frequently in 1997. Increased numbers of White-sided Dolphins, Fin and Humpback whales in 1997 may be explained by increased prey abundance and decreased sea-surface temperatures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207