MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7001117854

How Environmentally-Friendly is Whaling: An Ecological Perspective

2009· article· en· W7001117854 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Resource (disambiguation)Resource management (computing)WhaleWildlife managementGovernment (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Much of international debate about management objectives and appropriate utilization of both whale and elephant populations centres on whether it is appropriate to regard these stocks as being essentially the same or fundamentally different from other biotic or mammalian resource stocks. Increasingly it appears that sectors of western society imbue both whales and elephants (and certain other selected species, e.g. see Kellert 1986) with a special status that requires that they be treated fundamentally differently from other species for management and conservation purposes. \n \n"The special status accorded whales and elephants comes in part from their biological characteristics, though very often these may be imputed or imagined biological characteristics rather than scientifically established ones. For example, the question of 'intelligence,' or communication abilities, or behavioral or social characteristics of these particular animals are areas where sentimentality, imagination, extreme anthropomorphization, or mere wishful thinking frequently overtakes the available scientific evidence. Unfortunately it is not only non-scientists who suffer lapses of critical thinking in regard to these matters (though often these scientists are non-specialists in the areas of science they uncritically embrace). \n \n"It is easy to be misled in these matters, as government officials, public figures, the media and various national and international organizations promote the impression that whales and elephants are highly intelligent, seriously endangered and subject to needless and irresponsible slaughter and consequently in urgent need of total protection. \n \n"Many scientists associate themselves with these 'environmental' campaigns. Championing a popular 'green' cause certainly can provide a welcome change from labouring in relative obscurity, as public advocacy may result in invitations to speak and be consulted, the promise of travel, and, perhaps, enhanced access to research funds."

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.020
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University)Same topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207