Second reply to the comment by Romero and Kannada on “Genetic analysis of 16th-century whale bones prompts a revision of the impact of Basque whaling on right and bowhead whales in the western North Atlantic”Appears in Can. J. Zool.<b>84</b>(7): 1059–1065.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The comments by A. Romero and S. Kannada (2006. Can. J. Zool. 84: 1059–1065) provide a brief summary of North Atlantic whaling history as a critique of T. Rastogi et al. (2004. Can. J. Zool. 82: 1647–1654) . However, they fall far short of providing an accurate review of whaling history in this region. The authors present a number of factual errors, misuse several key sources, and make significant omissions, ultimately defeating the purpose of providing information to biologists, managers, and historians. In this comment I highlight the mistakes in their representation of the history of North Atlantic whaling for bowhead whales ( Balaena mysticetus L., 1758). There are unacceptable errors for most nations covered, and for American whaling in particular. The authors assert that over 30 000 bowhead whales were landed by Yankee whalers in the North Atlantic when the vast majority were in fact taken on the Pacific grounds. Although a summary of whaling history is an admirable goal and of potential value, it is unfortunate that the authors missed such an opportunity by failing to adequately research this topic, failing to include important citations, and by including sources that do not provide the information indicated. Providing a whaling summary with such errors and omissions only adds further confusion to an already confusing theme.
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.039 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
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".