Canada's Species at Risk Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian salmon are now eligible for protection under a federal Species at Risk Act proclaimed in June 2003 and fully implemented in June 2004. The act has four major steps dealing with species at risk of extinction: (1) an independent scientific committee assesses biological status and designates those at risk, (2) Federal Cabinet decides, following consideration of socioeconomic implications, which species to add to the legal list of species at risk, (3) legal protection, and (4) recovery planning and implementation. The committee has designated five distinct populations of salmon as endangered—one Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), one coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), two sockeye salmon (O. nerka), and one Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha). Only the Atlantic salmon is currently listed under the act; Cabinet decided not to list the two sockeye after considering socioeconomic implications and decisions on listing coho and Chinook are pending socioeconomic assessment. Both the Species at Risk Act in Canada and the Endangered Species Act in the United States use multiple criteria to assess the status of units that may be below the taxonomic species level. The Canadian act, in contrast to the act in the United States, mandates a non-governmental committee to assess status, separates biology from socioeconomics in the listing process, does not consider socioeconomic consequences when identifying critical habitat, and has specific timetables for the completion of recovery plans. Canadian salmon managers must now consider the effects of fisheries on salmon diversity, resulting in changes to the way fisheries are managed. The enactment of the act has introduced a new process for protecting salmon diversity in Canada, and its continued development and application will provide an interesting contrast to salmon conservation efforts in the United States.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.013 |
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".