The ecological and social dynamics of Inuit narwhal foraging at Pond Inlet, Nunavut /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research over the past several decades on the nature of Inuit hunting of narwhals has focused upon harvesting technologies and the traditional ecological knowledge of modern hunting of the species. However, as much as such work has contributed to our understanding of Inuit and narwhal interaction, less is known about contemporary Inuit hunting behaviour of narwhal. The research presented in this dissertation redresses this gap by providing a detailed behavioural description and analysis of the Inuit narwhal hunting in two critical environments utilized by the Inuit of Pond Inlet---those of the spring floe-edge and the summer open water. This information and its analysis are presented through three manuscripts. The first manuscript forms the analytical basis of the behavioural description by presenting through the use of a decision flow chart, the parameters that affect narwhal hunting. The second and third manuscript explore different foraging strategies involved in several major decisions the Inuit typically face when pursuing narwhal at the floe-edge (Manuscript Two) and in the open water environment (Manuscript Three). The data pertinent to the major decision factors influencing actions in both environments were obtained through participant observation, supplemented by interviews with hunters and elders. The main results of this research pertain to the different, but complementary, strategies employed by Mittimatalingmiut (Pond Inlet Inuit) hunters during the floe-edge and ice free seasons, as well as during the transition between the two. Before break-up, the most frequent method employed in floe-edge and outpost camp hunts is an ambush or a sit-and-wait strategy. Interestingly, during the transition between floe-edge and complete open water, Pond Inlet Inuit utilized both sit-and-wait and pursuit hunting strategies to maximize their hunting opportunities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".