Reforming the International Whaling Commission: Indigenous Peoples, the Canadian Problem and the Road Ahead
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Whaling Commission (iwc) conceals within its history a perennial battle between nations. Since the moratorium on commercial whaling took effect in 1986 both sides of the whaling debate have been unable to substantively advance their cause. This has led many commentators to question its purpose and ability to adapt to issues of modern significance. Given the interdisciplinary breadth of the debate at hand, this article primarily focuses on place of Indigenous peoples within the history of whaling and what role, if any, they will play in the future relevance of the iwc. It is argued that Canada’s withdrawal from the iwc, in the interest of its Indigenous peoples, should generally be regarded as a domestic regulatory success. Nevertheless, the time is ripe for Canada to re-establish itself at the international level with the goal of reforming the state of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling exception and perhaps the iwc itself.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".