Les pêches canadiennes, objet de relations internationales complexes et conflictuelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada's fisheries have always been the subject of complex and conflicting international relations. Until January 1977, the fishing grounds off the Canadian coasts were there to be exploited by any nation with the means to do so. Interstate competition had a disastrous effect on the stock. With the extension of Canadian responsibilities to 200 miles offshore, a national System was laid down for stock exploitation and appropriation. From 1976 to 1982, Canada set up plans for the strict management of its fisheries, and numerous agreements were signed which allowed for the allocation of surplus stock from the Canadian waters in return for a market for Canadian sea products. From 1982 to 1985, with its stock increasing, Canada's policy appeared more generous since it allowed for the allocation of its non-surplus stock to signatory countries with a growing market for Canadian goods or with lower tarriff barriers. Since 1985, the emphasis in Canada has been mainly on conservation : Non-surplus stocks are allocated to countries who buy Canadian sea products, though especially those who respect the Canadian territorial limits and who respect the quotas, set by the North West Atlantic Fishing Organisation, outside Canada's 200-mile zone in the Atlantic. Due to its proximity to the US and to France (St-Pierre and Miquelon), Canada has sustained relations with those two countries. There are major differences between them regarding the demarcation of maritime boundaries and the sharing of transnational 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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".