Australia and Canada in Regional Fisheries Organizations: Implementing the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the late 1980s and early 1990s a number of factors and events coalesced to encourage the international community to re-examine high seas fisheries issues. The need to enhance the effectiveness of regional fisheries organizations led to the development of the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, dealing with straddling and highly migratory stocks. Both Canada and Australia played a significant role in the development of this agreement. While having much in common, each state had different interests and concerns. Canada's attention was focused on the problem of straddling stocks, while Australia's interests have been primarily, though not exclusively, directed at highly migratory species. This paper analyses Australian and Canadian practices in relation to regional fisheries organizations, with a particular emphasis on the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it