Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2017, Leatherback Sea Turtles were re-listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) as two populations (Atlantic and Pacific), both Endangered. Leatherback Sea Turtles in Atlantic Canada belong to the Northwest Atlantic (NWA) subpopulation, which is listed as Endangered through the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. A Recovery Potential Assessment according to current guidance was not completed for the Leatherback Sea Turtle prior to its listing under SARA. The NWA Leatherback subpopulation is in decline, with a recent index abundance estimate of 20,659 mature nesting females at consistently monitored beaches and a regional nesting abundance decrease of 9.32% (CI: -12.9% to -5.57%) annually from 2008–2017. In the Northwest Atlantic, Leatherbacks use Canadian waters seasonally in the summer months. High use areas of core foraging habitat have been identified throughout Atlantic Canadian waters. There is no existing evidence to suggest that Leatherbacks are habitat limited in Atlantic Canadian waters. In Atlantic Canada, Leatherbacks do not come ashore and are broadly distributed through coastal and offshore waters. As such, there is no current method to accurately determine the number of turtles using these waters. Efforts are underway to correct for biases in estimating abundance of various species in aerial survey areas, which may produce a minimum estimate of the number of Leatherbacks using these waters. Throughout their range, Leatherbacks encounter a variety of natural and anthropogenic threats, with incidental fishery interactions identified as a leading cause of mortality within this subpopulation. While interactions do occur between Leatherbacks and fisheries in Atlantic Canadian waters, available data suggest that fishery interactions occur most frequently outside of Canadian waters, especially in waters adjacent to some high-density nesting beaches. At-sea mortality in Canada, and elsewhere, may be reduced through adaptive fishing methods (i.e., ropeless fishing gear, time-area closures, reduction of ghost gear). A spatial-temporal analysis of the overlap between fishery and Leatherback distributions should occur prior to the establishment of any new fisheries or potential changes in the seasonality or spatial extent of existing fisheries are considered. There is some scope for harm to Leatherbacks in Atlantic Canadian waters; however, human-induced threats should be reduced to the fullest extent possible throughout the Northwest Atlantic and regular assessments should be conducted to evaluate the impact of Canadian fisheries on this subpopulation. A recovery goal is to increase the number of Leatherbacks in the broader NWA subpopulation by maintaining or increasing the number of adult and subadult Leatherbacks using Atlantic Canadian waters. Progress towards this goal may be achieved by reducing human-induced interactions and mortalities in Atlantic Canada, supporting Leatherback persistent use of Canadian waters as core foraging habitat, and continuing efforts to monitor Leatherback spatial and temporal distributions. The NWA Leatherback subpopulation is not currently on course to meet the recovery goal. International collaboration (through activities such as nesting beach monitoring and protection, increased survey efforts throughout foraging habitats, and reduction of fishery nteractions throughout the NWA Leatherback range) is necessary for the recovery of this subpopulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".