A comparison of approaches for integrated management in coastal marine areas of Canada with the historical approach used in the Great Lakes (Bay of Quinte)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian approaches for ecosystem-based management in coastal marine areas, prompted by Canada's Oceans Act, are similar to and consistent with the long-standing, integrated management of the Bay of Quinte in Lake Ontario. The similarities include the criteria for the identification of ecologically significant areas and habitat, degraded areas, ecologically significant species, depleted or rare species, conservation objectives and ecological indicators to assess the status of ecosystem components. The rationale for integrated management in the Bay of Quinte is compared to marine areas, using the terminology that has been adopted for ocean area-based management in Canada. The three overarching goals of maintaining productivity, preserving biodiversity and protecting habitat are common to both freshwater and marine ecosystems. Communication of science priorities is mutually beneficial for advancing integrated management in both ecosystem types. Identifying the Bay of Quinte as a coastal management area by Great Lakes agencies, using elements of the oceans framework, would demonstrate a transition from a negative (degraded area) to a positive ecosystem status (essential habitat with high productivity and biodiversity).
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".