MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1999962671 · doi:10.1353/can.0.0288

Parasites from 'Alien Shores': The Decline of Canada's Freshwater Fishing Industry

2010· article· fr· W1999962671 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Liza Piper

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlienShoreFisheryFishingAlien speciesGeographyFishing industryEcologyBiologyInvasive speciesSociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Après 1900, les pêcheries du Nord-Ouest se sont développées considérablement depuis le sud du Manitoba jusqu'aux Territoires du Nord-Ouest, leur production étant principalement destinée aux marchés urbains des États-Unis. En réaction à la crise économique des années 1930, de nouveaux règlements commerciaux ont interdit l'importation de poisson infecté par un parasite appelé Triaenophorus, et ont frappé deux des plus importantes espèces commerciales de poisson d'eau douce : le cisco et le grand corégone. Au cours des décennies suivantes, malgré les nombreuses interventions scientifiques et gouvernementales dans les pêcheries, I'industrie de la pêche au poisson d'eau douce fut incapable de se remettre complètement des impacts économiques de nouveaux règlements commerciaux. Cet échec témoignait de l'influence sans précédent du parasite et de ses relations écologiques avec les autres espèces et avec l'eau douce où il a été trouvé. Cet article va au-delà du récit habituel sur les impacts du protectionnisme économique : il vérifie la manière dont le contexte naturel où l'on trouve des ressources comme le poisson intervient dans les affaires socio-économiques des humains

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical Review→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→