Science Response : Conservation implications of moving the northern boundary of the BEL-EHB beluga TAT zone south of its current location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2020, the Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board (NMRWB) renewed the Nunavik Beluga Management Plan for a five year period (2021 to 2026). Existing management measures include a total allowable take (TAT) of 20 beluga in the Eastern Hudson Bay management area (Figure 1), and Non-Quota Limitations (NQL) in respect to beluga harvesting elsewhere within the Nunavik marine region. In December 2023, the Anguvigaq (regional hunters and trappers organization) informed the NMRWB that the location of the northern boundary of the Eastern Hudson Bay (EHB) beluga TAT zone is disputed by local knowledge holders, resulting in impacts on the affected communities, Inukjuak (58.45°N; 78.10°W) in particular. The Anguvigaq recommended that the northern boundary, located at 59°N of latitude, be reassessed based on the best available scientific information and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ), and that moving the boundary further south be considered. In response to this request, the NMRWB elected to hold public hearings to consult with communities of the Eastern Hudson Bay area on the significance of changing the northern boundary of the EHB beluga TAT zone to beluga conservation and Inuit Rights. In preparation for this public hearing, the NMRWB requested that DFO provide a scientific review of the conservation implications that such a change in the TAT zone would have for the EHB beluga stock. This Science Response Report results from the regional peer review held April 12, 2024 on Conservation Implications of Moving the Northern Boundary of the Eastern Hudson Bay Arc Region Total Allowable Take Zone South of its Current Location. Additional publications from this meeting will be posted on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Science Advisory Schedule as they become available.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.005 |
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".