From controversy to dialog in aquaculture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 2.2 Sustainable development FAO, EU and different Nordic countries have developed guidelines for sustainable development of aquaculture.Sustainable development is complicated, includes different facets (different criteria, indicators, and levels), and different criteria may come into conflict with each other, e.g.energy consumption and employment.In general, there is a need to develop knowledge on implementation of sustainable regimes in intensive aquaculture to identify the optimal balance between producing more food where the renewable resources are optimally utilized and the resources are managed in a sustainable manner.The comparison of sustainable development within the involved countries in this project can contribute with new knowledge to the authorities, society, aquaculture industry, and researchers, and thereby strengthen the Nordic influence on this field, both regionally and internationally.Sustainable development is a complex concept, and several perspectives and approaches exist.It is assumed that the aquaculture controversy is linked to the disagreement of what is to be sustained and for how long, in addition, how to weight the different sustainable perspectives of sustainable development: environmental, economic, social, and institutional.Some stakeholders state that the environmental dimension has to be the basis fundament in sustainable development, while others think that all sustainability dimensions are of equal importance.It is clear that this controversy affects sustainable development of aquaculture.A Nordic co-ordination where the aim is to identify the similarities and differences regarding the aquaculture controversy in Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Faroe Islands and Canada can be positive for the Nordic countries due to exchanging knowledge, identification of synergies and constructive arguments.This can be important input to develop an improved governmental framework for further growth of a sustainable aquaculture industry in the respective Nordic countries. 3 AquaLog workshopThe AquaLog workshop was held 14 th -15 th April 2015, Nofima, Tromsø, Norway.The title of the workshop was `Intensive aquaculture and sustainable regional development in the Arctic -From controversy to dialog. 3.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".