A serological survey and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit of Ringed seals (Nattiit) in Frobisher Bay, Nunavut
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ringed seals, or nattiit in Inuktitut, continue to provide as a food staple for Nunavummiut, and the need for monitoring the health of the seal remains important. Seals in other regions, such as nattiit in the Baltic Sea, Hawaiian Monk seals, and California sea lions have been negatively impacted by disease-causing pathogens, making serosurveys important for monitoring seal health. Additionally, nattiit have been known to contribute high heavy metal content for Nunavik Inuit based on frequency of consumption. This leads to the question: are nattiit safe to eat based on pathogens and heavy metals? This thesis will frame the project around Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, which is Inuit knowledge surrounding the nattiq (ringed seals singular), including seal health, and changes in abundance over time. \n A serological survey was conducted on 55 nattiit for five pathogens: Brucella canis and abortus, Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, Leptospira interrogans, and Toxoplasma gondii. A digestion assay was used to test tongue and diaphragm samples for Trichinella larvae. Interviews were conducted with nine Local Knowledge Holders (LKH) to gather concerns about nattiq health, research interests and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. The interviews were based on nine semi-structured open-ended questions centred on nattiq health and food practices. Six main themes were identified from the interviews: age\npreference, seal abundance, illness in seals, methods of inspection, eating seal, and harp seals. \n All but two seals were deemed safe for consumption by the hunters. Thirty seals were young-of-the-year, 10 were juvenile (over one-year-old), 11 were adults, and four were of unknown age. Twenty-six seals were female, 21 were male, and eight were of unknown sex. All tested seals were negative for Brucella canis, and 20.5% (nine of 44) were seropositive for B. abortus. Of 52 seals tested for Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae (21%) were seropositive. All tested seals were negative for Leptospira interrogans serovars Canicola and Hardjo, with 61.5% (27 of 44) positive for serovar Bratislava, 4.5% (two of 44) for serovar Grippotyphosa, 90.9% (40 of 44) for serovar Icterohaemorrhagiae, and 22.7% (ten of 44) for serovar Pomona . The seroprevalence for Toxoplasma gondii was 9.8% (five of 51). All tested samples were negative for Trichinella. There were no significant associations between age classes and\nseroprevalence for all of the serological results. The only significant association between sex and seroprevalence was for Erysipelothrix (males > females); all others had no significant associations. Based on the serological results and digestion assay, this research did not identify any major health concerns for harvested nattiit or Inuit who continue to harvest them. Further testing to verify presence of all four pathogens detected from the serological results would be needed to identify risks and confirm which pathogens are actually present in the harvested nattiit of Frobisher Bay. Additionally, the results of this\nstudy are applicable to only the harvested nattiit population of Frobisher Bay.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».