Canada's Withdrawal from the International Whaling Commission in 1982 and Its Restoration of Inuit Bowhead Whaling. Lessons for Japan's Restoration of Coastal Whaling?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to compare Japan’s current transition in whaling to Canada’s, under way now for several decades – both precipitated by their departures from the International Whaling Commission (IWC). While heading in different directions (the latter for purposes of indigenous subsistence, the former commercial), their journeys share much in common. The Canadian example, of its 1982 IWC exit paving the way to a successful restoration of coastal whaling across Canada’s Arctic territories, offers much insight and understanding in the successful revitalization of a whaling culture. A look back at Canada’s 1982 IWC exit and its consequences will shed important light on what we may expect for Japanese coastal whaling in the years ahead. As Japanese whalers navigate their way from the Hobbesian international arena where it faced off against NGOs like Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace to a Rousseauian domestic context where whaling inside one’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is protected by the Law of the Sea, Japanese whalers can now refocus on overcoming declining domestic interest in consuming whale meat. In Canada, bowhead whaling is practiced with passion and enthusiasm by Inuit whalers celebrating the proud restoration of a tradition that faced the same oblivion that now threatens Japan’s struggling whaling industry.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".