MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133285276

Abundance estimates for Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) in James Bay and the Belcher Islands-Eastern Hudson Bay area in Summer 2021

2024· other· en· W7133285276 on OpenAlexaff
Anne St-Pierre, Jean-François‏ Gosselin, Arnaud Mosnier, Caroline C. Sauvé, Mike O. Hammill

Bibliographic record

VenueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayAbundance (ecology)Aerial surveyBelugaDistribution (mathematics)Bay mud
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Systematic line-transect surveys were flown in James Bay and the Belcher Islands-eastern Hudson Bay area from July 22 to August 23, 2021. A total of 357 groups of belugas were detected by primary observers, but only 330 groups remained after the left truncation of groups closer than 120 m from the track line to account for the reduction in detection probability near and underneath the plane. A single hazard-rate detection function was selected to model the probability of detection in both surveyed areas from the ungrouped distribution of perpendicular distances, which estimated an average effective strip half-width of 771 m (CV = 4%). A total of 249 groups with an average size of 1.78 (CV = 7%) animals were detected in James Bay over 4,272 km of survey lines, resulting in a surface abundance estimate of 5,043 (95% CI: 3,494–7,279) belugas. The Belcher Islands-eastern Hudson Bay area was split into a high coverage stratum, surveyed twice, and two low-coverage strata located to the north and in Richmond Gulf. On the first and second survey of the high coverage area, 72 and 35 groups with average sizes of 1.86 (CV = 12%) and 3.31 (CV = 26%) detected over 8,897 km and 8,828 km of transects, respectively. These produced respective surface abundance indices of 766 (95% CI: 413–1,423) and 669 (95% CI: 244–1,832). In the northern low-coverage stratum, only one individual was detected over 1,030 km of survey lines resulting in a surface abundance index of 12 (95% CI: 2–63). No beluga were observed in Richmond Gulf. New correction factors for availability and perception biases were calculated to account for the proportion of belugas visible at the surface and to account for animals at the surface but missed by observers. For the 2021 survey in James Bay, an availability correction factor of 0.590 (CV = 7.7%) and a perception bias correction factor of 0.601 (CV = 10.5%) resulted in a corrected abundance estimate of 14,213 (95% CI: 9,208–21,938). For the 2021 survey in Belcher Islands-eastern Hudson Bay, an availability correction factor of 0.549 (CV = 7.7%), a perception bias correction factor of 0.601 (CV = 10.5%), and the addition of 289 belugas observed in the Little Whale River Estuary, resulted in a corrected abundance index of 2501 (95% CI: 1,439–4,344). New correction factors were also estimated from and applied to the previous surveys (1985–2015) conducted in the James Bay and Belcher Islands-eastern Hudson Bay area.

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)0.001
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 score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada→French-language works237,207→