MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6940157076 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7848861

Supplementary material from "Changes in Inuit Hunting Practices Coinciding with the Introduction of Firearms in Nunatsiavut: Evidence from Stable Isotope Analysis of Ringed Seals"

2025· other· en· W6940157076 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsotope analysisSubsistence agricultureTrophic levelForagingPopulationStable isotope ratioBayClimate changeδ13C

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study used stable isotope analysis (SIA) of carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) of pinniped (seal) bone collagen from two Inuit archaeological sites in Nunatsiavut (Labrador, Canada), Oakes Bay 1 (HeCg-08) and Uivak Point 1 (HjCl-09). We use SIA to examine the relationship between Inuit communities and pinnipeds between the 17th-19th centuries CE, specifically the kinds of environments from which people harvested seals, exploring the environmental, social, and economic factors influencing seal hunting. During this period in Nunatsiavut, temperatures fluctuated, European colonial presence increased, and extensive social changes occurred among the Inuit, including a shift in settlement patterns. The trophic position and foraging pattern of harvested pinnipeds remained relatively stable, but we observed an increase in the seals' trophic variability over the time period considered. These results suggest that when entrepreneurial Inuit individuals accessed firearms in larger numbers during the 18th century CE, they gained the opportunity to hunt a larger portion of the ringed seal population living in the region, likely including more large and potentially older individuals. This study highlights the impact that technological and social change can have on subsistence practices.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7710.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207