MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416953026 · doi:10.5038/2074-1235.53.2.1641

Bonavista Bay Murre Hunters in Newfoundland and Labrador Propose Further Interaction with Biologists and Managers

2025· article· W4416953026 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chris Humphries, Grant Humphries, Alexandra M. C. Robbins, Gail S. Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine ornithology · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaySeabirdOrnithologyResource (disambiguation)BiodiversityConvention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thick-billed Murres Uria lomvia and Common Murres U. aalge, seabirds with low reproductive rates, delayed reproduction, and high adult survivorship, are hunted in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) by non-Indigenous residents. The traditional hunt has a complex regulatory history as a result of NL joining Canada in 1949 and the protection of non-game species under the Migratory Bird Convention Act. Thirty hunters from the northeastern region of the island of Newfoundland were interviewed about their knowledge of murres, their hunting practices, and their opinions on current hunting regulations. While the hunters had detailed local species knowledge from the region they hunted, most had a limited understanding of the broader aspects of the species' ecologies, such as breeding locations. Most (76.6%) interviewees said that they would be willing to participate in harvest surveys if the surveys were made mandatory. Interviewees highlighted the need for resource managers to conduct on-the-ground hunter training and engagement. In general, sustainable harvests under current regulations are more likely to succeed if communities are actively engaged through consultations that encourage hunters to participate in conservation efforts.

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)0.000
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine ornithologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207