MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1996644832 · doi:10.1139/f06-066

Flexible catch-balancing policies for multispecies individual fishery quotas

2006· article· en· W1996644832 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel S. Holland, Guillermo E. Herrera

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBycatchOverexploitationFisheryFlexibility (engineering)BusinessBioeconomicsFishingEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In multispecies fisheries managed with individual fishery quotas, fishers targeting certain species often have insufficient quota to cover other jointly caught species. New Zealand employs a unique, dual quantity–price system to address this problem. In lieu of acquiring quota, fishers can opt to pay a fee per unit of catch known as deemed value (DV). Although designed primarily to create flexibility in catch balancing for individuals, this system can allow aggregate catches to exceed total allowable catches (TACs). The DV system reduces the likelihood that target species catches are constrained by TACs of bycatch species, but also increases the risk of overexploitation of bycatch species. Using a bioeconomic model, we evaluate the risk and efficiency of alternative DV policies in fisheries with one target and one bycatch species. Our simulations suggest that increasing DVs above ex-vessel price in response to TACs being exceeded can control risk of overexploitation without reducing overall efficiency; however, this does shift rents from owners of target species quota to owners of bycatch species quota.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→