MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002647510 · doi:10.7557/3.3065

A catch history for Atlantic walruses (<i>Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus</i>) in the eastern Canadian Arctic

2014· article· en· W2002647510 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNAMMCO Scientific Publications · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaResearch Manitoba
FundersStrongDartmouth College
KeywordsArcticGeographySubsistence agriculturePopulationFisheryBayOceanographyEcologyArchaeologyBiologyAgricultureDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of changes in abundance of Atlantic walruses (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) in Canada is important for assessing their current population status. This catch history collates available data and assesses their value for modelling historical populations to inform population recovery and management. Pre-historical (archaeological), historical (e.g., Hudson Bay Company journals) and modern catch records are reviewed over time by data source (whaler, land-based commercial, subsistence etc.) and biological population or management stock.Direct counts of walruses landed as well as estimates based on hunt products (e.g., hides, ivory) or descriptors (e.g., Peterhead boatloads) support a minimum landed catch of over 41,300 walruses in the eastern Canadian Arctic between 1820 and 2010. Little is known of Inuit catches prior to 1928, despite the importance of walruses to many Inuit groups for subsistence. Commercial hunting from the late 1500s to late 1700s extirpated the Atlantic walrus from Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, but there was no commercial hunt for the species in the Canadian Arctic until ca. 1885. As the availability of bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) declined, whalers increasingly turned to hunting other species, including walruses. Modest numbers (max. 278/yr) were taken from the High Arctic population in the mid-1880s and large catches (up to 1400/yr) were often taken from the Central Arctic population from 1899 -1911, while the Foxe Basin stock (Central Arctic population) and Low Arctic population were largely ignored by commercial hunters. Land-based traders (ca. 1895-1928) continued the commercial hunt until regulatory changes in 1928 reserved walruses for Inuit use. Since 1950, reported walrus catches have been declining despite a steady increase in the Inuit population. Effort data are needed to assess whether lower catches stem from declining hunter effort or decreased walrus abundance. The recent take of walruses by sport hunting has been small (n=141, 1995-2010), sporadic and local.These landed catch estimates indicate the minimum numbers of walruses removed but do not account for under-reporting or lost animals that were killed but were not secured. Unreported and lost animals may represent a significant fraction of the total removals and must be considered in any modelling exercise. The sources, quality and completeness of the catch data vary widely over time and space and between the different hunt types. This variability confounds interpretation and contributes to the uncertainty that needs to be incorporated into any modelling. The data on Inuit subsistence catches before ca. 1928 are particularly fragmentary and uncertain.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.202 · 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