China's distant‐water fisheries in the 21st century
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 We conservatively estimate the distant‐water fleet catch of the P eople's R epublic of C hina for 2000–2011, using a newly assembled database of reported occurrence of Chinese fishing vessels in various parts of the world and information on the annual catch by vessel type. Given the unreliability of official statistics, uncertainty of results was estimated through a regionally stratified M onte C arlo approach, which documents the presence and number of Chinese vessels in Exclusive Economic Zones and then multiplies these by the expected annual catch per vessel. We find that C hina, which over‐reports its domestic catch, substantially under‐reports the catch of its distant‐water fleets. This catch, estimated at 4.6 million t year −1 (95% central distribution, 3.4–6.1 million t year −1 ) from 2000 to 2011 (compared with an average of 368 000 t·year −1 reported by China to FAO ), corresponds to an ex‐vessel landed value of 8.93 billion € year −1 (95% central distribution, 6.3–12.3 billion). Chinese distant‐water fleets extract the largest catch in African waters (3.1 million t year −1 , 95% central distribution, 2.0–4.4 million t), followed by Asia (1.0 million t year −1 , 0.56–1.5 million t), Oceania (198 000 t year −1 , 144 000–262 000 t), Central and South America (182 000 t year −1 , 94 000–299 000 t) and Antarctica (48 000 t year −1 , 8 000–129 000 t). The uncertainty of these estimates is relatively high, but several sources of inaccuracy could not be fully resolved given the constraints inherent in the underlying data and method, which also prevented us from distinguishing between legal and illegal catch.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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