MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593182193 · doi:10.14430/arctic4625

Estimating Wildlife Harvest Based on Reported Consumption by Inuit in the Canadian Arctic

2017· article· en· W2593182193 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Tiff‐Annie Kenny, Hing Man Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersGovernment of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaArcticNetGovernment of Nunavut
KeywordsBeluga WhaleWildlifeGeographyArcticSubsistence agricultureConsumption (sociology)Food securityFisheryPopulationLivelihoodIndigenousSocioeconomicsAgricultureWildlife managementEcologyDemographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The harvest and consumption of wildlife are integral to the livelihood, culture, and nutritional status of the Inuit of northern Canada. When wildlife populations are perceived to be vulnerable, harvest restrictions may be enacted to protect species conservation interests. Such restrictions may also have consequences for the nutrition and food security of Inuit communities. This study aims to estimate the harvest numbers of key wildlife species needed to sustain the traditional diet of Inuit. Using responses to the food frequency questionnaire that were collected from 806 men and 1275 women during the Inuit Health Study of 2007 – 08, we characterized annual country food consumption in five Inuit regions of northern Canada. Data on average edible yield of food species and Inuit population demographics were compiled and used to estimate the total number of harvested animals. Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) was the species consumed with the highest prevalence (> 90%) and in greatest amounts (29.6 – 122.8 kg/person/yr), depending on sex and region. The annual consumption rate for beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) was 5.9 – 24.3 kg per person, depending on sex and region, and that for ringed seal (Pusa hispida) was 4.1 – 25.0 kg per person. To sustain this consumption rate, it is estimated that a mean total of 36 526 caribou, 898 beluga whales, and 17 465 ringed seals are required annually. These results provide a baseline for food security and resource management in the Canadian Arctic to balance Indigenous subsistence needs and wildlife conservation.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations34
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207