Final Report of the Fifth Meeting of Scientific Experts on Fish Stocks in the Central Arctic Ocean
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This report provides a summary of the 5th meeting of scientific experts on Fish Stocks in the Central \nArctic Ocean (FiSCAO) on October 24‐26, 2017, in Ottawa, Canada. \nAt the request of the 10 parties negotiating on an agreement to prevent unregulated commercial fishing \nin the High Seas portion of the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO), participants of the 5th FiSCAO meeting were \ntasked with addressing four Terms of Reference, summarized below: \n ToR 1. Design a 1‐3 year long mapping program. \n ToR 2. Design a monitoring program. \n ToR 3. Identify human, financial, vessel/equipment resources needed for mapping and \nmonitoring. \n ToR 4. Develop data collection, sharing, and hosting protocols that outline the details of what \nand how data shall be collected, shared, and hosted for consideration by the Parties. \nThe 5th FiSCAO meeting included scientific representatives from seven states including Canada, the \nPeople's Republic of China, the European Union, Iceland, the Republic of Korea, the Kingdom of Norway \nand the United States of America. The meeting also included representatives from the International \nCouncil for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) and \nthe Arctic Council’s Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) and Conservation of Arctic \nFlora and Fauna (CAFF) working groups. \nThe report summarizes the elements for collecting baseline data (i.e., a mapping program) in the high \nseas CAO to achieve the goals of documenting species distributions, relative abundances and key \necosystem parameters (ToR 1). The mapping program describes the priority areas to sample, the types \nof data to collect and possible data collection approaches to employ. Participants emphasized that \nexisting planned surveys are very limited, and that significant dedicated resources will be required to \nimplement the mapping program. \nThe report outlines a strategy for monitoring indicators of fish stocks and ecosystem components (ToR \n2). The report includes a list of existing monitoring programs and a prioritized list of indicators to detect \nenvironmental change in the high seas CAO. Further refinement of a monitoring program will use \ninformation from the mapping program (ToR 1). Participants emphasized the need to begin monitoring \nas soon as possible and that additional research is required to operationalize monitoring indicators. \nThe report summarizes the preliminary cost estimates (ToR 3) to implement a mapping program to \ncollect data in the high seas portion of the CAO using a vessel of opportunity and in the Pacific Gateway \nregion of the CAO using an independently‐organized survey. Cost implications for the monitoring \nprogram and other scientific activities are also listed (e.g., data analysis, data management). \nThe report includes a draft data sharing policy as the foundation for a future data sharing protocol, \nincluding the technical specifications for data sharing (ToR 4). The development of the data sharing \nprotocol will require negotiation and legal review among the participating states. A data management \nand data sharing pilot study on a CAO fish database is suggested to test a framework.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».