Distinguishing benchmarks of biological status from management reference points: A case study on Pacific salmon in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY For fisheries with multiple, competing objectives, identifying and applying reference points for management can present difficult trade-offs between long-term biological and shorter-term socioeconomic considerations. The term biological benchmarks is proposed to demarcate zones of population status based on conservation and production considerations. These scientifically derived benchmarks contrast with management reference points that generally require additional shorter-term socioeconomic information best obtained through public consultations. This paper illustrates the distinction between biological benchmarks and management reference points with a case study on Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchusspp.). In Canada, the management and assessment of wild Pacific salmon are guided by a major 2005 conservation policy, which calls for the identification of biological benchmarks to categorize status of demographically isolated populations, and decision-support tools, such as management reference points, to integrate biological information with appropriate social and economic information. In the Fraser River (British Columbia, Canada), the selection of management reference points for sockeye salmon (O. nerka) fisheries explicitly considered trade-offs between the probability of meeting long-term biological objectives on component populations and harvest objectives on population aggregates. Decisions about reference points were made in a consultative process that included extensive stakeholder engagement. Other agencies are urged to distinguish biological benchmarks from management reference points to ensure transparency in the relative influence of biological versus socioeconomic information in decision making.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".