Inuit Knowledge of beluga whale (<i>Delphinapterus</i><i> leucas</i>) foraging ecology in Nunavik (Arctic Quebec), Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas (Pallas, 1776)) is expected to be influenced by changes in the environment. In Nunavik, the Arctic region of Quebec, Nunavimmiut (Inuit of Nunavik) have depended on beluga for centuries, developing an extensive understanding of the species and its ecology. Forty semidirective interviews were conducted with Inuit hunters and Elders from four Nunavik communities, who had a range of 28–47 years of beluga hunting experience. Interviews followed an ethnocartographic format and were analyzed using a mixed methods approach. Hunters most commonly reported prey species from the sculpin (Cottidae), cod (Gadidae), salmon (Salmonidae), and crustacean families; regional variations in prey and in foraging habitat were found. Hunters identified significant changes in body condition (i.e., blubber thickness), which were associated with observations about the seasonality of feeding. The timing of fat accumulation in the late fall and winter coupled with the understanding that Hudson Bay is not known as a productive area suggest alternate hypotheses to feeding for the seasonal movements exhibited by these whales. Inuit Knowledge of beluga foraging ecology presented here provides information on diet composition and seasonality of energy intake of the beluga and can be an important component of monitoring diet composition for this species into the future. An Inuttitut version of the abstract is available ( Appendix A ).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".