Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crises in fisheries around the world have made everyone realize that the health of ocean ecosystems cannot be taken for granted. In this article I discuss the science and policy of marine sanctuaries by examining the case of Atlantic Canada. By providing fishing-free sanctuaries for marine biodiversity, the richness of life in Canada's oceans be retained and healthy fisheries will also be promoted. The protection of deep-sea coral communities from mobile fishing gears is presented as an example. Marine sanctuaries can be created under the provisions of existing laws in Canada. The Oceans Act, for example, permits the creation of “marine protected areas.” The benefits of marine protected areas are discussed, and plans for developing systems of marine protected areas are outlined. Peer-reviewed article accepted for publication on 17 February 2002.
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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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".