Design and implementation of electronic monitoring in the British Columbia groundfish hook and line fishery: a retrospective view of the ingredients of success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Catches in the groundfish hook and line fishery in British Columbia on Canada's west coast have been monitored since 2006 with an interrelated suite of technical components. These include, but are not limited to, full (100%) independent dockside monitoring, full video capture of fishing events and vessel monitoring at sea, 10% partial review of the video imagery from each trip, and full coverage of fisher logbooks. The monitoring also relies on complete retention of the over 30 species of rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Each component, in spite of its weaknesses as a stand-alone monitoring tool, makes an essential contribution without which the overall programme would fail. The programme has surpassed expectations in providing accurate, defensible, and timely estimates of total catch for all quota and many non-quota species. This document summarizes contextual and process ingredients, which contributed to implementation, the key being a “carrot and stick” approach wherein industry support was facilitated by the “carrot” of coincident full introduction of individual vessel quotas (ITQs). The “stick” was that Government support was conditional on improving catch monitoring with the proviso that ITQs would not be considered and the fishery would be closed until the monitoring was improved. Also important was the fact that previous failures to solve management and catch monitoring in this fishery with overly simple solutions had created an understanding by all participants that an effective and lasting solution would be complex and require a major commitment of time and funds.
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 | 0.024 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".