MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220682488 · doi:10.1111/mms.12925

Modeling population trajectory and probability of decline in northern Hudson Bay narwhals (<i>Monodon monoceros</i>)

2022· article· en· W4220682488 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brooke A. Biddlecombe, Cortney A. Watt

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Mammal Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayPopulationGeographyPopulation modelPopulation declineAerial surveyPopulation sizeFisheryEcologyHabitatBiologyDemographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Narwhals ( Monodon monoceros ) are an important subsistence harvest species for Inuit communities and their conservation is important for Inuit culture and ecosystem function. The northern Hudson Bay (NHB) narwhal population, which spends summer in northern Hudson Bay, Canada, has been assessed through periodic aerial surveys from 1981 to 2018. To estimate the population trajectory and predict future population trends under various harvest scenarios, a Bayesian population model was fit to four aerial survey estimates and harvest data from 1951 to 2018. The model resulted in a 2019 population estimate of ~14,400, 95% CI [10,300, 20,400] and an estimated starting population of 7,200, 95% CI [1,400, 19,000] in 1951. The model was extended 10 years into the future under three annual harvest scenarios (current harvest: 157, low harvest: 50, and high harvest: 300) and the probability of population decline was estimated. The model predicted a 6% chance of decline with an annual harvest quota of 50 narwhals, 78% for a harvest of 157, and 95% for a harvest of 300. This updated model provides the opportunity to shape conservation efforts by estimating past population trends and how those trends, combined with management action, can affect future population dynamics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Mammal ScienceSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207