Overview of marine protected areas in the eastern Canadian Arctic and their ability to mitigate current and future threats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arctic marine environment is defined by a number of ecological, cultural, and social dimensions, including endemic organisms, rare environmental features (e.g. polynyas), and Inuit social and cultural practices. Marine protected areas (MPAs) offer one available protection tool, yet the current extent of the MPA network is insufficient to adequately conserve the ecological, cultural, and social dimensions present. This research quantified the risk associated with industrial activities (i.e. mining, commercial shipping, tourism, commercial fishing, and hydrocarbon activities), climate change, and improper mechanisms of Inuit participation to the ecological, cultural, and social dimensions in the eastern Canadian Arctic. Three assessment locations (i.e. Cumberland Sound, Eclipse Sound, and Clyde River) and two timeframes (i.e. current extent and 15-year future) were included in analysis to elucidate spatial and temporal differences. Climate change was consistently assessed as having the highest risk score across locations and timeframes. MPAs offer mitigation potential for all industrial activities, though this will depend on specific design and conservation objectives, and effective inclusion of Inuit in governance. Recommendations from this research include creation of legislation to support the implementation of Indigenous protected areas and creation of protected spaces in the eastern Canadian Arctic before the footprint of industrial activities increases. Keywords Canadian Arctic, risk assessment, Baffin Island, climate change, marine protected areas, risk mitigation, Indigenous protected areas
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".