Surveillance for Zoonotic Pathogens and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit of Ringed Seals (nattiit) (Pusa hispida) in Frobisher Bay and Eclipse Sound, Nunavut, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ringed seals (Pusa hispida) (nattiq (s.), nattiit (pl.) [Inuktut]) provide an important food staple for Nunavummiut (Indigenous residents of Nunavut). We studied the health of nattiit harvested by hunters from Baffin Island, Nunavut, via Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and veterinary science. We conducted serological surveys and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for select zoonotic pathogens, including Brucella spp., Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, Leptospira interrogans, and Toxoplasma gondii, in 55 nattiit from Frobisher Bay (FB) and 58 nattiit from Eclipse Sound (ES). We used a digestion assay to determine the presence of Trichinella spp. larvae in muscle samples from these seals. We conducted interviews with nine Local Knowledge Holders (LKHs) from Iqaluit (FB) and nine from Pond Inlet (ES) to gather their observations about nattiq health. The hunters evaluated nattiq health through a combination of behavior, nutritional condition, and appearance of skin and organs. They rarely observed severely ill nattiit. Hunters from ES but not from FB observed declining nattiit population numbers. In both regions, they observed increased numbers of harp seals (Phoca groenlandica). Frequencies of natural exposure among nattiit from FB and ES, based on seroprevalence, were 20.5% and 37% for Brucella spp., 25% and 11% for E. rhusiopathiae, 93% and 100% for L. interrogans, and 10% and 27% for T. gondii, respectively; PCR was negative for these pathogens in organs and tissues of seropositive animals. We did not detect larvae of Trichinella spp. Knowledge and experience from the LKHs in assessing nattiq health, complemented by negative findings from direct detection methods, provide reassurance about the safety of nattiit as country food, despite their exposure to some zoonotic pathogens in their natural environment.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".