What was hot at the fourth World Fisheries Congress?*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Given the current crisis in global fisheries, how well are we doing at managing fisheries? This short paper describes as summarises the results of a systematic assessment of the scientific papers presented at the Fourth World Fisheries Congress, the theme of which was ’Reconciling fisheries with conservation’. Over 200 papers were presented, 70% of which were based on natural sciences, focusing on issues such as biodiversity, species at risk, resiliency, ecosystem modelling, and ecosystem indicators. Encouragingly, over 60% of the papers scored medium to high for their potential contribution to reconciling fisheries with conservation. However, although the human dimensions of fisheries were recognized, few studies involved stakeholders beyond their roles of objects to study. Communication of scientific research findings, particularly to the general public, was notably absent and emphasised as one of the key challenges in achieving sustainability and in reconciling fisheries with conservation.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".