MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hatchery Reform in Washington State

2005· article· en· W1568752427 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceWashington State University
KeywordsHatcheryFish migrationFisheryFish hatcheryOncorhynchusBusinessFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental planningGeographyAquacultureBiologyFish farming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hatcheries support nearly all major fisheries for Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and steel-head (anadromous O. mykiss) in the Pacific Northwest. However, hatcheries have been a major source of controversy for over 30 years. The Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) was tasked by Congress to identify solutions to well-known problems so hatcheries could better meet their goals of supporting sustainable fisheries and assisting with the conservation of natural populations. We reviewed over 100 facilities and 200 programs and identified three principles of hatchery reform: (1) goals for each program must be explicitly stated in terms of desired benefits and purposes; (2) programs must be scientifically defensible; and (3) hatchery programs must respond adaptively to new information. We also identified several emerging issues critical to the success of hatcheries. We concluded that hatcheries must operate in new modes with increased scientific oversight and that they cannot meet their goals without healthy habitats and self-sustaining, naturally-spawning populations.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.189 · 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