Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worldwide, whales have been hunted to the brink of extinction. In Brazil, whaling was a royal monopoly between 1614 and 1801. Within the dynamics of the Portuguese Empire, it was a stimulus that promoted wealth and the circulation of knowledge, practices, and products. The development of whaling stations in four coastal sites fostered the construction of littoral spaces, shaped the ways people perceived and used the ocean and marine animals, and left an impact on whale populations in a truly entangled history between humans and the non-human world. In this article, we aim to identify the main target species and number of animals caught through the analysis of historical sources from the 17th and 18th centuries. Southern Right Whale and Humpback Whale were the main target species, to a different extent, between the north-eastern and south-eastern whaling sites, but occasionally hunted simultaneously. We accounted for a total of 9080 animals captured in 41 years, between 1627 and 1801, and addressed hunting loss and calf-securing practices. In discussing biodiversity loss in the era of the Anthropocene, we expect to contribute to a better understanding of early impacts on marine life in the 1600-1800 period. Funding This paper had the support of CHAM (NOVA FCSH / UAc), through the strategic project sponsored by FCT (UIDB/04666/2020). The author was sponsored by a PhD scholarship by FCT (SFRH/BD/104932/2014). This study has received funding from the European project CONCHA (EU H2020-MSCA-RISE-2017 research and innovation programme under grant agreement Nº 777998) and the European Research Council (ERC) Synergy Grant 4-Oceans (European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement Nº 951649). It has also received support from the UNESCO Chair ‘The Oceans’ Cultural Heritage’, OPI-Oceans Past Initiative, and APCM-Associação Para as Ciências do Mar.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".