Zodiac landings by tourist ships in the Antarctic Peninsula region, 1989–99
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper examines the location, intensity, and frequency of zodiac landings by passengers on tourist ships in the Antarctic Peninsula region during 10 seasons, 1989/90 through 1998/99. In this period, the number of passengers increased 307%, from 2460 to 10,013. Zodiac landings have occurred at 165 Peninsula region sites, concentrating in the South Shetland Islands and the northwestern part of the Peninsula. From 1989/90 to 1998/99, the number of zodiac landings in the Peninsula region increased 423%, from 164 to 858. The most visited sites are identified, as are sites experiencing increases in the second half of this 10-year period. The 10 and 20 sites experiencing the most zodiac landings each season consistently account for approximately 55% and 75% of that season's landings, respectively. Based on 1998/99 data, sites with high or medium species diversity or with high or moderate sensitivity to potential environmental disturbance account for a significant percentage of landings. Recommendations are presented for improving the assessment of potential environmental impacts at zodiac landing sites, and for improved methods of reporting site visits by the tour operators involved.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".