Diet and feeding observations from an unusual beluga harvest in 2014 near Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Eastern Beaufort Sea (EBS) beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) population are an important traditional food for the Inuit of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Northwest Territories (NT) Canada. In 2014, over 30 beluga whales were harvested at Ulukhaktok, NT, the first occurrence of a large harvest in the area on record. Unlike observations from the established beluga harvest monitoring program in the Mackenzie Estuary, these belugas had numerous prey and prey items in their stomachs. Our study objectives were to combine traditional and local knowledge (TLK) from beluga hunters with the analysis of dissected stomachs to identify EBS beluga diet, feeding behaviour, as well as gain insights into potential drivers of the event. TLK holders witnessed foraging behaviors such as herding schools of fish. Stomach dissections revealed Sandlance (Ammodytes sp.) to be the predominant prey species, comprising 90% of identified otoliths, occurring in 92% of stomachs. The low presence of Arctic Cod (Boreogadus saida), a preferred prey types, raised questions about prey availability/accessibility and if alternative prey types can sustain beluga energetic needs. Based on interviews of TLK holders, avoidance of noise due to human activity, killer whale presence, and shifts in prey were factors that may have led to the increased beluga sightings near Ulukhaktok, NT.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".