MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1863560503

Historical Data on the Impact of 16th-Century Basque Whaling on Right and Bowhead Whales in the Western North Atlantic

2009· article· en· W1863560503 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brad Loewen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhalingWhaleBayGeographyFisheryOceanographyArchaeologyGeologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Basques pioneered whaling in Newfoundland waters around 1530 and remained the only group to exploit western Atlantic whale populations until 1600, hunting from coastal stations in southern Labrador and eastern Québec. In light of recent research on archaeological whale remains from Red Bay in Labrador, this paper presents historical data relevant to the numbers of whales that were hunted by 16th-century Basques. These data led to an estimate of 13,000 whales killed, a count lower than those provided by other analyses. Whaling peaked in the 1570s, then declined sharply around 1579 to low levels for the remainder of the century. The Basques primarily targeted the bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus). As whaling intensified in the 1560s, the Basques noticed a second bowhead migration in mid-November and extended their hunting season until freeze-up. During this time, the port of Red Bay increased in importance until about half of all Basque whaling ships were based there in the 1570s. Basque whalers preferred stations in the Strait of Belle Isle for economic and security reasons but also because of the late fall bowhead whale hunt.

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 score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→