Estimates of abundance and total allowable removals for the Hudson Bay-Davis Strait Atlantic walrus stock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerial surveys of terrestrial haul-out sites and adjoining coastline were flown during September 2017 to determine abundance of Walruses belonging to the Hudson Bay-Davis Strait (HBDS) stock. The survey covered northern Hudson Bay, southern Foxe Basin, Hudson Strait, and southeastern Baffin Island. Uncorrected counts of hauled out Walruses in the surveyed area totaled 13,400. These counts were adjusted to account for animals at sea during the survey. The adjusted aerial survey estimate for the HBDS stock is 44,600 (95% CI = 19,500–102,000; rounded to the nearest 100). A survey of the northern Hudson Bay-Hudson Strait component of the HBDS stock flown in 2014 produced an adjusted abundance estimate of 7,100 (95% CI = 2,500–20,400). In 2017, there were an estimated 38,500 (95% CI = 15,100–98,300) Walruses for the same area. The difference between the two estimates is greater than what would be expected from population growth alone. The higher 2017 count may have resulted from a greater proportion of animals hauled out than assumed, particularly at Walrus Island in northern Hudson Bay. Another possibility is movement of Walrus from other areas (e.g., Foxe Basin) into northern Hudson Bay, or a combination of the two factors. However, there were no reports of unusual Walrus movements in 2017. A population model fitted to the survey data and Canadian harvest data estimated a total abundance of 8,200 (95% CI = 5,800–19,700) for the northern Hudson Bay-Hudson Strait component of the HBDS stock. Adding in the estimated abundance for Walruses along the east coast of Baffin Island (3,900; 95% CI = 2,200–7,200) results in a total abundance of 12,100 (95% CI = 7,000– 20,800) for the HBDS stock. The Potential Biological Removal estimate for the HBDS stock is 360, assuming a Recovery Factor of 1. Reported harvest levels by Canadian communities harvesting from this stock have declined from a high of 604 in 1954 to an annual estimated average of 95 animals over the last five years. Assuming a combined struck and loss (S&L) and non-reporting rate of 44% derived from a population model results in an estimated total annual removal of 137.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".