MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521204679

The Implications of Successful Fisheries Management: A Decade of Experience With The Upper Grand River Tailwater Fishery

2010· article· en· W1521204679 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ryan Plummer, Cory Kulczycki, John FitzGibbon, Michael Lück, Jonas Velaniškis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and community development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of AlbertaBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingRecreationFisheries managementFisheryRecreational fishingFish stockFisheries lawBusinessWork (physics)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental planningGeographyEconomicsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Managers of recreational fisheries have traditionally focused on biophysical factors related to the provision and maintenance of fish stocks. However, human dimensions and community development are equally important considerations. This paper highlights the angling experiences, economic impacts, and community development associated with the creation of a brown trout fishery in the upper section of the Grand River in Ontario, Canada. Results are presented from a series of four surveys conducted on this reach of river over the past decade. Findings build upon traditional measures of success and encompass other factors linked to the fishery. Considering these often unintended implications from successful fisheries management makes clear the importance of broadening fishery considerations beyond biophysical elements. The study highlights the potential for developing nature-based recreation amenities as a strategy for broadening the economic development base in rural communities and an ongoing need for fisheries managers to work with members of the community. Keywords: human dimensions of fisheries management, economic impacts, rural economic development, community development, Grand River, Canada

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rural and community developmentSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207