Correlates of recovery for Canadian Atlantic cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>)<sup>1</sup>This review is part of the virtual symposium “Flagship Species – Flagship Problems” that deals with ecology, biodiversity and management issues, and climate impacts on species at risk and of Canadian importance, including the polar bear (<i>Ursus maritimus</i>), Atlantic cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>), Piping Plover (<i>Charadrius melodus</i>), and caribou (<i>Rangifer tarandus</i>).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The collapse of Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua L., 1758) in the early 1990s, perhaps the greatest numerical loss of a Canadian vertebrate (1.5–2.5 billion reproductive individuals), is one from which the species has yet to recover. Populations, or stocks, are at or well below their conservation reference points. The lack of recovery has been linked to ongoing fishing mortality (targeted, bycatch), changes to life history (reductions in age and size at maturity, truncations in age and size structure), and increased natural mortality. Emergent and demographic Allee effects, coupled with altered interspecific interactions, render questionable the presumption that the recovery of heavily depleted populations can be reliably forecasted by population dynamical behaviour during decline. Contrary to international commitments and inconsistent with fishery rebuilding plans elsewhere, cod recovery plans exclude target and limit reference points, recovery timelines, and harvest control rules. We suggest that the long-term biodiversity, social, and economic benefits associated with cod recovery can be realised by novel changes, including quantitatively responsible recovery plans based on science-determined reference points, new or revised legislation, integrated management strategies, strengthened sustainable seafood certification practices, expansion of marine spatial planning and protected areas, and novel financial incentives for investment in long-term, sustainable fisheries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".