MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968244755 · doi:10.1080/03632415.2013.848344

Use of Geographic Information Systems by Fisheries Management Agencies

2013· article· en· W1968244755 on OpenAlex
Brandon L. Eder, Ben C. Neely

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKansas Department of Wildlife and ParksNorthwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
KeywordsFisheries managementAgency (philosophy)Work (physics)Geographic information systemBusinessEnvironmental resource managementFisheries scienceFisheryService (business)Fish <Actinopterygii>Fisheries lawFisheries ResearchEnvironmental planningGeographyFishingMarketingEngineeringCartographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Use of geographic information systems (GIS) in fisheries science has increased in prevalence since its introduction in the late 1980s, but use among and within fisheries management agencies has not been quantified. We surveyed 89 administrators of fisheries management agencies in the United States and Canada to determine the current status of GIS in fisheries management and received 54 responses (61% return rate). Survey respondents indicated that GIS was used to help manage fish populations, and 63% of respondents believed that GIS was either “very useful” or “extremely useful” for meeting agency objectives. However, most GIS work conducted by fisheries management agencies was executed by few individuals within the agency or by contracted service. Barriers preventing more widespread use by managers within agencies included lack of knowledge or training and limited time to use GIS in job duties. Our results suggest that GIS is an important tool for fisheries management. Further, GIS use within an agency might be increased by focusing on increased biologist participation in training exercises, integration with existing job duties, and recognizing diversity among GIS software. RESUMEN desde que se introdujo en la década de los ochenta, los Sistemas de Información Geográfica (GIS) se han utilizado cada vez más en las ciencias pesqueras, sin embargo aún no se ha cuantificado dicha utilización entre y hacia el interior de las agencias de manejo pesquero. Se realizó un sondeo a 89 encargados de agencias manejo pesquero en los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica y Canadá para determinar el estado actual de los GIS en el ámbito de manejo, recibiéndose 54 respuestas (tasa de retorno de 61%). Los encuestados indicaron que los GIS fueron desde “muy útiles” hasta “extremadamente útiles” para cumplir los objetivos de las agencias. No obstante, la mayor parte del trabajo de las agencias basado en los GIS, era realizado por algunos pocos individuos de las propias agencias o bien por servicios contratados. Las barreras que impiden un uso más generalizado de los GIS hacia el interior de las agencias de manejo incluyen la falta de conocimiento o entrenamiento y limitaciones de tiempo para usar este enfoque como parte del trabajo diario. Estos resultados sugieren que los GIS son una herramienta importante para el manejo de pesquerías. Más aún, el uso de los GIS dentro de las agencias, pudiera incrementarse enfocando o aumentando la participación de los biólogos en los ejercicios de entrenamiento, integración a las labores diarias de trabajo y reconociendo la diversidad de software de los GIS.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.162 · 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