Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Report “A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems” (B. S. Halpern et al. , 15 February, p. [948][1]) provides a timely overview of anthropogenic effects on even the farthest reaches of Earth's oceans. However, we contend that, for at least one region, using data from only the past decade leads to misleading results. A widespread perception exists that waters south of the Antarctic Polar Frontal Zone—i.e., the Southern Ocean (SO)—are still nearly pristine ([1][2], [2][3]). In fact, the northern portion of the SO saw virtually all cetacean populations removed long ago ([3][4]), and in subsequent years (1960s to 1980s) the largest stocks of demersal fish in the Indian Ocean and Scotia Sea/Atlantic Ocean sectors were also fished to commercial extinction ([4][5], [5][6]). Historically exploited fish species and cetaceans show little signs of recovery in the SO, and recent legal commercial fishing activity has been correspondingly low ([6][7]). It is thus no surprise that the modeling used by Halpern et al . shows little anthropogenic impact in these sectors apart from that of climate change. The authors acknowledge that accounting for current illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing in these waters might show increased human impacts. The additional consideration of historical data should cause Halpern et al . to temper their conclusion that for the world's oceans “large areas of relatively little human impact remain, particularly near the poles.” 1. 1.[↵][8]1. J. P. Croxall, 2. P. N. Trathan, 3. E. J. Murphy , Science 297, 1510 (2002). [OpenUrl][9][Abstract/FREE Full Text][10] 2. 2.[↵][11]1. V. Smetacek, 2. S. Nicol , Nature 437, 367 (2005). [OpenUrl][12] 3. 3.[↵][13]1. J.A. Estes, 2. D.P. Demaster, 3. D.F. Doak, 4. T.E. Williams, 5. R. L. Brownell Jr. 1. L. Ballance 2. et al. , in Whales, Whaling and Ocean Ecosystems, J.A. Estes, D.P. Demaster, D.F. Doak, T.E. Williams, R. L. Brownell Jr., Eds. (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2006), pp. 215-230. 4. 4.[↵][14]1. O. Gon, 2. P. C. Heemstra , Fishes of the Southern Ocean (J. L. B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, Grahamstown, South Africa, 1990). 5. 5.[↵][15]1. K.-H. Kock , Antarctic Fish and Fisheries (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1992). 6. 6.[↵][16]Fishery Reports, Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources ([www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/fr/drt.htm][17]). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1149345 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #ref-5 [7]: #ref-6 [8]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1. in text [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.aulast%253DCroxall%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BP.%26rft.volume%253D297%26rft.issue%253D5586%26rft.spage%253D1510%26rft.epage%253D1514%26rft.atitle%253DEnvironmental%2BChange%2Band%2BAntarctic%2BSeabird%2BPopulations%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.1071987%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12202819%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [10]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIyOTcvNTU4Ni8xNTEwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjU6Ii9zY2kvMzIxLzU4OTUvMTQ0My4yLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ== [11]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2. in text [12]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNature%26rft.volume%253D437%26rft.spage%253D367%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [13]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3. in text [14]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4. in text [15]: #xref-ref-5-1 View reference 5. in text [16]: #xref-ref-6-1 View reference 6. in text [17]: http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/e_pubs/fr/drt.htm
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.006 |
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".