Is there evidence of increased pup production in northwest Atlantic harp seals, Pagophilus groenlandicus ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photographic and visual surveys of the whelping (pupping) concentrations off eastern Newfoundland (“Front”) and in the Gulf of St Lawrence (“Gulf”) were conducted during March 1994 to determine whether pup production of Northwest Atlantic harp seals has increased since the decline in hunting during the mid-1980s and early 1990s. Photographic counts were corrected for misidentified pups by comparing multiple readings of photographs made by two or more readers. Survey estimates were also corrected for pups absent from the ice at the time of the survey using the occurrence of distinct age-related developmental stages. Multiple estimates were available for three of the ten whelping concentrations. Pup production was estimated to be 446 700 (s.e.=57 200) at the Front, 57 600 (s.e.=13 700) in the northern Gulf and 198 600 (s.e.=24 200) in the southern Gulf (Magdalen Island) for a total of 702 900 (s.e.=63 600). This result is greater than estimates obtained in the late 1970s and early 1980s using mark-recapture techniques. The 1994 estimate can be compared directly with the 1990 estimate of pup production (578 000, s.e.=38 800) which was obtained using similar aerial survey methods. The null hypothesis of no increase in pup production (one-tail t-test) was rejected (p=0.03) indicating that pup production has increased.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".