International Whaling Commission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive summary • In this report, we present data from three sources to examine the welfare aspects of the commercial Canadian seal hunt as it currently operates. These sources are: (i) 17 post mortem examinations of harp seal pups killed in 2007; (ii) videos supplied by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) showing 169 seals killed by over 20 different sealing boats during the hunts in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007; and (iii) an Expert Opinion Analysis where 133 experts were sent 30 randomly-selected timelines where each showed the sequence of events extracted from the videos for a single seal kill and asked "How do you rate the overall welfare of this animal during the processes which resulted in its death?". • Both the seal carcasses and the videos were a random sample and the data in this report provide a comprehensive overview of the pattern of sealing undertaken across a broad spectrum of ice conditions and by different sealing
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.240 | 0.158 |
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".