Canada’s international and national commitments to sustain marine biodiversity<sup>1</sup>This manuscript is a companion paper to Hutchings et al. (doi:10.1139/a2012-011) and Hutchings et al. (doi:10.1139/er-2012-0049) also appearing in this issue. These three papers comprise an edited version of a February 2012 Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel Report.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has made numerous international and national commitments to sustain marine biodiversity. International commitments include the implementation of ecosystem-based management, the establishment a network of marine protected areas, and the restoration of commercially exploited fish stocks. However, the international commitments tend to be quite general in nature with the precise governance implications of key principles, such as precaution and the ecosystem approach, being open to interpretation, thus leaving considerable room for discretion in implementation. Consequently, a plethora of soft law documents has emerged to provide more specific guidance to decision-makers and progressively develop international law and policy. Nationally, Canada has embraced a long list of commitments that are supportive of sustaining marine biodiversity through legislation and numerous policy-related documents. Nonetheless, Canada has left many of these commitments unfulfilled or inadequately fulfilled, such as (i) the development of integrated management plans for coastal and marine waters, (ii) the implementation of the precautionary approach for Canada’s fisheries, and (iii) the establishment of recovery strategies and identification of critical habitat for species at risk. Although the goal of effective protection of marine biodiversity in Canada appears to be guided by international and national commitments, there remains a clear need to fully implement, operationalize, and strengthen these commitments as articulated in the Oceans Act, fisheries management-related policies, the Species at Risk Act, and others.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".