MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111671122 · doi:10.14430/arctic647

Cruise Tourism and Sea Ice in Canada's Hudson Bay Region

2010· article· en· W2111671122 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Emma Stewart, Adrienne Tivy, Stephen Howell, Jackie Dawson, Dianne Draper

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCruiseBaySea iceOceanographyArcticGeographyTourismDemiseIcebergArctic ice packPhysical geographyGeologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tourism in the Hudson Bay region of central northern Canada generally is associated with non-consumptive forms of nature-based activities (such as polar bear viewing). However, the region has experienced variable growth in the cruise sector in recent years. This paper examines patterns of cruise activity in all subregions of the Hudson Bay region during three cruise seasons (2006, 2008, and 2009) and mainly reveals a pattern of decline. Since the prevalence of sea ice is an important part of visitor experiences of polar cruises, we examine sea ice change and occurrence of icebergs in the Hudson Bay region. Our sea ice analysis suggests that the length of the navigable shipping season is increasing in this region, which may facilitate both earlier and later shipping. But in terms of cruise traffic, we suggest that the demise of ice coverage signals a possible decline in cruise activity in most of the Hudson Bay region because ice-supported wildlife may shift north with the diminishing ice regime. Given the possible environmental and socio-cultural implications of changing cruise activity patterns in the Arctic and the absence of broad-scale monitoring and surveillance of the industry, use of these available data sources is vital to building a clearer picture.

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)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations41
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207