The role of <scp>CITES</scp> in the conservation of marine fishes subject to international trade
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract All possible tools need to be marshalled for marine fish conservation. Yet controversy has swirled around what role, if any, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) should play for marine fishes. This paper analyses the relevance and applicability of CITES as a complementary tool for fisheries management. CITES currently regulates the international trade of very few marine fish species, by listing them in its Appendices. After the first meeting of the Parties (member countries) in 1976, no new marine fish taxa were added to the CITES Appendices until 2002, when Parties agreed to act to ensure sustainable and legal international trade in seahorses ( Hippocampus spp.) and two species of sharks. Progress has continued haltingly, adding only one more shark, humphead wrasse ( Cheilinus undulatus ) and sawfishes by 2012. Parties voice concerns that may include inadequate data, applicability of CITES listing criteria, roles of national fisheries agencies, enforcement challenges, CITES ' lack of experience with marine fishes, and/or identification and by‐catch problems. A common query is the relationship between CITES and other international agreements. Yet all these arguments can be countered, revealing CITES to be a relevant and appropriate instrument for promoting sound marine fisheries management. In reality, Parties that cannot implement CITES effectively for marine fishes will also need help to manage their fisheries sustainably. CITES action complements and supports other international fisheries management measures. As CITES engages with more marine fish listings, there will be greater scope to analyse its effectiveness in supporting different taxa in different contexts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it