Destroying and Restoring Critical Habitats of Endangered Killer Whales
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endangered species legislation in the United States and Canada aims to prevent extinction of species, in part by designating and protecting critical habitats essential to ensure survival and recovery. These strict laws prohibit adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat, respectively. Defining thresholds for such effects is challenging, especially for wholly aquatic taxa. Destruction of critical habitat (e.g., prey reduction and ocean noise) threatens the survival and recovery of the 75 members of the endangered southern resident killer whale population found in transboundary (Canada-United States) Pacific waters. The population's dynamics are now driven largely by the cumulative effects of prey limitation (e.g., the endangered Chinook salmon), anthropogenic noise and disturbance (e.g., reducing prey accessibility), and toxic contaminants, which are all forms of habitat degradation. It is difficult to define a single threshold beyond which habitat degradation becomes destruction, but multiple lines of evidence suggest that line may have been crossed already.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it