Some Thoughts on Estimating Change to Arctic Cod Populations from Hypothetical Oil Spills in the Eastern Alaska Beaufort Sea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a fecundity-hindcast model that incorporates Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) acute toxicity data, field studies of Arctic cod larval distribution and abundance, natural mortality estimates for Arctic cod eggs and larvae, and an oil spill fate model in Alaska Beaufort Sea. Three orders of magnitude of spill events (1000, 10 000, and 100 000 tons) were evaluated for both physically and chemically dispersed oil. Using worst-case assumptions in our model, a 100 000 ton spill of crude oil treated with dispersants resulted in 266 million m3 of water that exceeded our acute toxicity threshold, compared to a volume of 71 million m3 for a 100 000 ton spill not treated with dispersants, and resulted in exposure of about 2 million Arctic cod larvae remaining from an initial 87 million eggs. This represents the reproductive output of about 7300 adult females. Adult Arctic cod populations in the Alaska Beaufort number in the tens to hundreds of millions. The results show that even with an order of magnitude variation in exposure, the effect of dispersing a large oil spill on the regional cod population is expected to be insignificant (∼0.7%). The recent hiatus in Arctic oil and gas development affords an opportunity to acquire additional data to further strengthen this conclusion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".