Sea Shepherd's Strategic Opposition to Legalized Seal Hunting in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seal hunting has been practiced by the Inuit people for centuries as a means of survival in icy regions with limited natural resources. The Inuit hunt seals because every part of the animal provides numerous benefits. Over time, seal hunting was also adopted by fishermen along the Canadian coast. The reason for this hunting, as carried out by the fishermen, was to preserve the hunting culture of the Inuit. However, the purpose of hunting shifted from subsistence to commercial aims. As the revenue generated from the sale of seal hunting products contributed significantly to Canada’s income, the Canadian government legalized seal hunting, which subsequently led to large-scale hunting. The legalization caused environmental crimes, as the number of hunted seals exceeded the quotass set by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and the hunting methods were often brutal. Consequently, Canada came under scrunity from environmental-focused international Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs), one of which is Sea Shepherd. This article provides an overview of Sea Shepherd as an actor within the Transnational Advocacy Network (TAN) and its efforts to end the legalization of seal hunting in Canada. The initiatives undertaken by Sea Shepherd have led to positive outcomes, such as the cessation of seal hunting export-import activities to the European Union and better control over the number of seals being hunted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".