Population dynamics of the threatened Cumberland Sound beluga (<i>Delphinapterus leucas</i>) population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current scientific evidence indicates that the threatened Cumberland Sound beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas (Pallas, 1776)) population is genetically differentiated and spatially segregated from other beluga whale populations. This population has been hunted for subsistence for centuries by Inuit who now live in the community of Pangnirtung, Nunavut, Canada, and was harvested commercially from 1860 until 1966. The commercial harvest removed at least 10 000 individuals from the population. Visual and photographic aerial surveys were flown during August 2014 and 2017 and produced beluga whale abundance estimates of 1151 (CV = 0.214; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 760–1744) and 1381 (CV = 0.043; CI = 1270–1502), respectively. Long-term trends in abundance were examined by fitting a Bayesian surplus-production population model to a time series of abundance estimates (n = 5), flown between 1990 and 2017, taking into account reported subsistence harvests (1960–2017). The model suggests the population is declining. Engaged co-management of the Cumberland Sound beluga population and information on demographic parameters, such as reproductive rates, and age and sex composition of the harvest, are needed to restore the ecological integrity of the Cumberland Sound marine ecosystem.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".