MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1505365948 · doi:10.24124/c677/200715

The Canadian Fisheries Industry: Retrospect and Prospect

2007· article· en· W1505365948 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gunhild Hoogensen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Political Science Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFish stockBlameLiberalizationStock (firearms)Government (linguistics)FisheryBusinessSubsidyFish <Actinopterygii>EconomicsNatural resource economicsMarket economyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Without question, Canadian domestic policy has had an influence on the development of the fisheries staple industry – from its National Policy to its subsidization of both fishers and, more recently its effort to conserve of fish stocks. In this respect Laxer is correct in allocating “blame” for the current dire status of the fisheries industry where it is, in part, due: on the Canadian government itself. However, it is also the case that trade liberalization, from the pressures exerted early on by the colonizing country of Britain, to the current dependency upon the US market for fish exports, has played an enormous role on the development, if not devastation of the industry. In this respect the Canadian government could have done much more in the way of first recognizing the severity of fish stock depletion as well as fostering a sustainable fisheries industry that met the needs of conservation and fisher communities

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.012
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Political Science ReviewSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207