MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096100854 · doi:10.47536/jcrm.v18i1.419

Influence of anthropogenic activities on marine mammal strandings in the estuary and northwestern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Quebec, Canada, 1994–2008

2023· article· en· W3096100854 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marie-Hélène Larose-Truchon, Lena N. Measures, Jean‐Claude Brêthes, E.J. Albert, Robert Michaud

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œjournal of cetacean research and management. Special issue · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersCenter of Excellence in Regulatory Science and InnovationUniversité de MontréalParks CanadaFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
KeywordsMarine mammalFisheryFishingEstuaryGeographyMarine debrisWhaleOceanographyBiologyGeologyDebris

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stranding records have long been used to monitor marine mammal mortalities and to help identify threats to populations. In coastal areas, marinemammals face numerous anthropogenic threats such as marine traffic and commercial fishing. The objective of this study was to investigate marinemammal stranding records from the St. Lawrence Estuary (SLE) and the northwestern Gulf of St. Lawrence (NWGSL), Quebec, Canada from 1994to 2008 for evidence of anthropogenic trauma caused by entanglement in fishing gear, ship collisions and gunshots. Of 1,590 marine mammalstranding records, 12% (n = 192) had evidence of anthropogenic trauma, most incidents being reported during summer when activities such asmarine traffic, most commercial fishing and recreational boating, occurred and a greater number of species were present in the area. These incidentswere classified into five categories (Incidental catch, Ship collision, Severe injury, Gunshot, Other). There were 1,245 mortalities and observationson carcasses suggested that anthropogenic trauma led to the death of 11% (141/1,245) of marine mammals: 14% (87/627) of cetaceans and 9%(54/618) of seals. Mortality of seals due to anthropogenic trauma was low, involving mainly Gunshot for grey (26% or 8/31) and harbour seals(26% or 8/31). Over the study period, marine mammal incidents with evidence of anthropogenic trauma increased significantly, driven by an increasein Incidental catch for two mysticete species, the common minke whale, 42% (39/92) and humpback whale, 13% (12/92) and Other for harbourporpoise 67% (16/24). Ship collision was the most common anthropogenic trauma for fin whales (22% or 8/36) and SLE beluga5 (22% or 8/36).Severe injury was reported for 22% (2/9) of small cetaceans and 78% (7/9) of seals. Evidence from some harbour porpoise stranding records(categorised as Other) suggests illegal hunting, incidental catch, predation or scavenging by grey seals in a marine protected area. The observedincrease in Incidental catch of common minke and humpback whales may be due to: (1) a shift in distribution of these two species into the SLE andNWGSL, possibly related to changes in the ecosystem; (2) changes in fishery practices; and (3) an increase in detection of marine mammal strandings.Anthropogenic trauma affecting marine mammals was documented including some species at risk, such as the harbour porpoise, the St. LawrenceEstuary beluga population, blue and North Atlantic right whales, in the St. Lawrence ecosystem including in a marine protected area. This studydemonstrates the usefulness of stranding records in helping to monitor human-caused mortality in marine mammal populations.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œjournal of cetacean research and management. Special issueSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207