MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163659763 · doi:10.1656/045.018.0309

Reports of Humpback and Minke Whales in the Hudson Bay Region, Eastern Canadian Arctic

2011· article· en· W2163659763 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeff W. Higdon, Steven H. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueNortheastern Naturalist · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhalingBayMinke whaleFisheryBaleenBalaenopteraBeluga WhaleHumpback whaleGeographyArcticOceanographyWhalePopulationGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We summarize recently reported sightings of Megaptera novaeangliae (Humpback Whales) and Balaenoptera acuturostrata (Minke Whales) in the Hudson Bay region, in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Balaena mysticetus (Bowhead Whale) is the only baleen whale historically known from Hudson Bay, and during the commercial whaling era (1860–1915), no other large whale was reported to occur there. We note recent (ca. last 10 years) Humpback observations reported by local Inuit hunters in Hudson Bay and northern Foxe Basin. One Humpback was also observed by cetacean biologists in Ungava Bay during an aerial survey for Delphinapterus leucas (Beluga Whales). Minke Whales have previously been reported in southern Hudson Bay and James Bay, and recent discussions with Inuit hunters have indicated possible sightings in Foxe Basin and western Hudson Bay. They are commonly observed by Inuit in eastern Hudson Strait, where there have also been recent detections by biologists. Observations of these species in Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin may be related to reduced ice cover and increased open water, changes in prey species distributions, population recovery and growth following commercial whaling, or some combination of factors. More efficient reporting of observations is needed, and improved community-level monitoring would assist with documentation of temperate-region species in high-latitude areas.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNortheastern NaturalistSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207