MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077895297 · doi:10.14430/arctic771

Spring Migration and Subsistence Hunting of King and Common Eiders at Holman, Northwest Territories, 1996-98

2001· article· en· W2077895297 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Tim Byers, D. Lynne Dickson

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEiderSpring (device)WaterfowlGeographySubsistence agricultureFisheryEcologyArchaeologyBiologyHabitatAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A subsistence hunt for eiders by Innuvialuit of Holman, Northwest Territories, was observed over three spring harvest seasons from 1966 to 1998 to determine rates of crippling loss and to assess the sustainability of the harvest. King eiders (Somateria spectabilis) are the dominant waterfowl species harvested. The number of king eiders estimated to migrate past Holman in spring varied from 40 696 ± 4461 (95% confidence interval) in 1996 to 70 018 ± 14 356 in 1998, averaging 53 000 per year. Common eiders (Somateria mollissima v-nigra) were much less abundant, varying from 2728 ± 631 to 6017 ± 770 birds, averaging 4400 annually. Peak numbers of king eiders moved through the study area in 1-8 days during the second to third week of June in all years, and common eiders peaked in 1-8 days during the first to second week of June. Strong winds may have hindered migration for a few days. Crippling loss rates during the hunt were low (3-9%) in the first two years of the study, but increased to 13-20% in the early open-water spring of 1998, when hunters were forced to shoot over open water rather than shorefast ice. On the basis of these estimates and harvest data from the Inuvialuit Harvest Study, we determined that Holman hunters removed 3.7-6.9% of the king eider subpopulation and less than 1% of the common eiders over the three-year study period. The present level of harvest of eiders available to Holman hunters is likely sustainable. However, more information on natural mortality and recruitment rates, particularly for king eiders, is needed to confirm this.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207