MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145294124 · doi:10.3197/096734006776026791

Bowhead Whales in the Eastern Arctic, 1611-1911: Population Reconstruction with Historical Whaling

2006· article· en· W2145294124 on OpenAlexaff
Robert C. Allen, Ian Keay

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and History · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhalingGeographyPopulationArcticFisheryEcologyArchaeologyBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As early as 1611 Bowhead whales resident between the east coast of Greenland and the island of Spitzbergen were the subject of intensive commercial hunting effort by Dutch, German and British whalers. By 1911 there was no significant, permanent population of Bowhead whales living in these waters. To understand the relationship between the commercial exploitation of the Bowhead and their eventual extinction we must determine the chronology of their decline, starting with an estimate of the initial, pristine stock size. In this paper we compare and contrast four methodological approaches that can be used to estimate the Greenland-Spitzbergen Bowhead stock size prior to, and during, commercial exploitation. Using species-specific biological parameters, a delayed-difference recruitment model, and historical whaling records, we reconstruct the Greenland-Spitzbergen Bowhead population throughout the period of human predation. We estimate that there were approximately 52,500 adult Bowhead whales resident in the waters between the east coast of Greenland and the island of Spitzbergen in 1611.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations47
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and HistorySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207