MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6908212140 · doi:10.25607/obp-1700

White paper on management and utilization of large whales in Greenland. [Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission].

2018· other· en· W6908212140 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIOC of UNESCO (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission) · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhalingSubsistence agricultureHuman settlementPopulationDanishWhite (mutation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kalaallit Nunaat/Greenland is a Self-Governing part of the Kingdom of Denmark with full legislative and executive responsibility in many fields including the management of natural living resources. Foreign policy (including international organisations) is the responsibility of the Danish Government in consultation with Greenland. Greenlanders have maintained a traditional lifestyle connected to the sea dependent on marine resources, including subsistence hunting. Greenland (2018) has a population of app. 55,900 people living in 17 towns and 81 settlements (2018, West Greenland: 52,635 and East Greenland: 3,242). Inuit comprise about 90 % of the population. Within the IWC context, Greenland’s hunt of large whales falls in the category of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) together with the Chukotka hunt of gray and bowhead whales, the Bequia hunt of humpback whales and the Alaskan hunt of bowhead and gray whales. For aboriginal subsistence whaling the IWC has the following objectives: - ensure risks of extinction not seriously increased (highest priority); - enable harvests in perpetuity appropriate to cultural and nutritional requirements; - maintain stocks at highest net recruitment level and if below that ensure they move towards it. The Greenland hunt for large whales respects those objectives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOC of UNESCO (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission)French-language works237,207